Wednesday, November 29, 2006

The New Democrats

Languishing in the minority of both houses of Congress, and losing the White House - twice - to a man whose political instincts are only a couple notches above those of one Mr. Quayle, the Democrats have taken on, or perhaps absorbed, a new personality and character. Gone are the moderate patriots of the World War II generation. Gone are the staid and balanced liberals whose politics - did not include - the destruction of our culture and traditional values. Somewhere - the Socialists of the Democrat Party became Multiculturalists, Secularists, and Neo-Globalists. The power - and the money - behind the new Democrat Party is something that our government has never seen before - both in its suspect vision and its ruthlessness.

Gone is Frank Church and Sam Nunn... Replaced by the likes of Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin. Gone are the John Breaux's and Richard Shelby's... replaced by a different breed with names like Schumer and Boxer.

Rostenkowski is gone, but Charlie Rangel will be taking his place as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Democrat House Speaker Tom Foley, with his ACLU rating of 91, will be replaced by Nancy Pelosi with an ACLU rating of 100.

Could it be argued that when the Republicans were swept into power - that it was mostly the kooky liberal areas that hung on to their representatives - and that these Far-Lefties are the ones who now have seniority - and control the purse strings - and will run the show?

Last evening O'Reilly said that he was surprised that Pelosi and other Liberals weren't more "buoyant" after the elections - He suggested that there is a disproportional anger among Democrats even after winning control of Congress. Is this the personality of the New Democrat Party?

For the past 6 years the Dems have been have been bomb throwers - a Washington Taliban of Liberal Elites with a "baying at the moon" kind of political strategy, discourse, and diplomacy. Now that they have power - can we honestly expect them to somehow turn the corner and develop dignity and manners? With success at the ballot box, will these roguish boors suddenly exchange hyperbole for statesmanship? Will a new strategy - something other than "Bush Lied" - emerge enabling them to solve the monumental challenges this country faces?

Having adopted outrageousness as their modus operandi, how will this wartime less-than-loyal opposition suddenly become a band of patriots with the discipline and seriousness necessary to deal with a worldwide Islamic Jihad?

The answer is simple - they won't. They will investigate. They will obstruct. They will treat our ills by dispensing sound bites. They will threaten impeachment. They will blame.
These are the "ideas" they have developed in the past few years.

In November the Liberal Jihad conquered reason with audacity. Propaganda proved itself a mighty tool when used upon the gullible and distracted.
But now that it's time to govern... God help us.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just when I thought I could tolerate reading your site every day ...

My comments -- for what they are worth:

Having adopted outrageousness as their modus operandi, how will this wartime less-than-loyal opposition suddenly become a band of patriots with the discipline and seriousness necessary to deal with a worldwide Islamic Jihad?"

This is above you, really. Not loyal? All hyperbole aside, do you really think that there is a Congressman that is not loyal to this country? Perhaps not in the warped definition of the Necons but so what?
This country was built on differing beliefs -- and yes, differing forms of patriotism. How is holding an opposing view on war or anything else "less-than-loyal?" It's not. Being protective with the lives of American soldiers is no less "loyal" than attempting to wipe out a terrorist threat.

"The answer is simple - they won't. They will investigate. They will obstruct. They will treat our ills by dispensing sound bites. They will threaten impeachment. They will blame."

Who exactly are you talking about here? The Democrats of 2006 or the Republicans of 1997? In reality, the Democrats have been restrained. It would have been very easy for them to run around yelling "Impreachment proceedings begin Jan. 2" Other than some of the crackpots, I haven't heard much of that.

"In November the Liberal Jihad conquered reason with audacity."

Forget the Dems, this is insulting to the American Voter. Oh, the voters can't see through the smokescreen of soundbites and audacious allegations thrown out by the Democrats. Bullsh*t.

After that dumbass Kerry made his gaff, I had a similar arguement with my sister-in-law. After I pointed out that it appeared that the Dems would take the House and draw close in the Senate, she unleashed this "Oh, the Kerry thing will make people change their vote. The GOP will hold on to both houses."

Uh... while the American Voter might not be the sharpest tack -- up and down the line -- but they aren't that fickle. Give people a bit more credit.

I am usually baffled how people vote e.g. 2000 & 2004. But that doesn't give me license to say the people have been duped into voting a certain way. I just wish that more people would exercise the right, nay privilege, to cast a ballot. If 100 percent of the people vote and they vote a different way than I do, at least I know it's the will of the people.

Perhaps I am too idealistic.


"Propaganda proved itself a mighty tool when used upon the gullible and distracted."

Again, see the Clinton years. Distract the public with Clinton's sex life and they won't notice the other crap you do.

Clearly there are nutcases on both sides. I don't believe -- and hope you would agree -- "Far-Lefties and Far-Righties" are indicative of the body of either party.

Bottom-line: Comparing the Democrats to Islamic terrorists is no different than comparing the Repubs to Nazis.
It might make you feel good but it is surely not based in reality.

Malott said...

C Mac,

I would hate to no longer get your comments... even the negative ones.

But I honestly believe that the Democrat Party [has] changed in the last few years.

And do you honestly believe that there are no Democrats who welcome failure in Iraq if it means regaining power and the furthering of their agenda? And, you don't protect the lives of soldiers when you encourage the enemy. The Dems used the war - not to remove us from Iraq, something they knew would not happen till after '08 - they used the war for political gain. They recreated the "paper tiger" image that bin Laden spoke of.

The American voter is fat, lazy, and stupid... something the Left has been cashing-in on for years. How else do you explain 80% of the American People wanting a fence on the southern border - then voting "out of power" the group in the House that were going to build it?

And sorry, I don't fear far-righties. They aren't the ones attempting to flush our culture... nor are they the ones who deny the worldwide Jihad that is coming to our doorstep whether we feel like fighting or not.

If I don't hear from you, be well. I've enjoyed your visits.

Anonymous said...

Oh, no. You aren't getting rid of me that easy.

Nice try.

I will around to offer my viewpoint and comments.

I am not one to "Cut & Run" -- even if I am a Democrat.

:^)

SkyePuppy said...

Chris,

I was going to jump in and answer some of C. McLefty's Fightin' Words, but I didn't have the time. Now I'm glad I kept my mouth shut.

Beautifully done.

Anonymous said...

Fighting words?

Providing comments on his labeling of Democrats as jihadists are fighting words?

Hmmm.

And it's not like he blasted me to the stone age with his retort. Nor did I do the same to him.

You must have me mistaken for some other liberal p*ssy.

SkyePuppy said...

C. McLefty,

Is that last word spelled with an "i" or a "u"? Oh, never mind.

No, it was the loyalty remark that got my feathers ruffled. And then I couldn't think very clearly, because the ruffled feathers had me distracted. But I think Malott did just fine with that, so I'll leave it there.

paw said...

Malott,

You are bright and articulate. You certainly can elicit, shall we say, strong responses.

I'd like to suggest that there's not a whole lot for anyone to be buoyant about with the utter mess you people are leaving behind. Further, I'd suggest that that same lack of buoyancy is evidence of "seriousness". Another "Heads I Win Tails You Lose" setup from OReilly.

Getting a lecture from you about dignity and manners in such a prick-like way is undeserving of a serious response, as is your angry hate filled complaint about mythical Liberal Elites, while your team has industries and media empires built around the sport of the demonization and the contempt of all things liberal. You are scorching the earth, Malott. You.

Malott said...

PAW,

Spare me the outrage.

My honest comments pale next to the hate-filled rhetoric your buddies have hurled at our President.

Forgive me, but the Dems that will be "running the show" do not represent my politics or my values and have shown no willingness to address the world war that extremists are currently waging.

Maybe the Dems will be serious adults now that they have some real power. But I don't think so... because that might serve to elect another conservative president.

But I appreciate your "thought-provoking as usual" comments.

paw said...

Shorter verision:
- Your hate is bad
* Your hate is worse
- No its not
* Yes it is

Unsatisfying and unproductive.

But I'm right and you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

Well said PAW.