Friday, November 19, 2004

Will The Next Loser Please Stand Up?
I swore two weeks ago that I would stop political blogging, but i can't help myself. Part of it is the insanity of democrats, most of whom still cannot believe that a) they fielded a bad candidate, and b) that democracy worked when he was sent packing. What really caused me to start this little missive, however, has been the almost-constant harping about who the democrats can field in the next presidential election that will stand a chance of perhaps winning.

Now, what's funny about this, in a sick sort of way, is that the folks trotted out by democrats are obviously unhinged. They don't live on the same planet the rest of us do. They're missing vital chromosomes that have had dire consequences for their thought processes.

We can run the list of the afflicted: Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, Paul Begala, James Carville, etc.
All of them display three common symptoms of dementia: a failure to recognize reality when it slaps you in the face, a fantasy world in which they are actually more relevant than they really are, and finally, an ability to ramble incoherantly.

We're already talking about democrats lining up for another run at the White House in 2008, and there are a host of people out there that go on TV daily and talk them up. Let's cut through the political spin and the democratic party talking points and get down to brass tacks. First we'll tackle the issues and then we'll tackle the potential candidates.

The issues, for democrats, revolve around one fundamental point: the government welfare state must continue at all costs. A secondary issue for democrats is that the government welfare state must find new ways to insinuate itself into people's lives, so that it not only continues, but thrives. The point of both issues is that they are attempts to make democrats indispensible while they fundamentally fuck the country up to match their utopian dreams. In other words, the point of being a democrat is to be able to destroy American government and culture while you lull the masses to sleep with free goodies. Hence, all the talk about "saving" Social Security, "saving" the enviornment or Medicare, repeated mantras about "Education" and "Healthcare". These are not issues in the same way that turtles are not mammals --- they don't belong in the realm of government in the same way that turtles don't have fur.

In a perfect world, government would do for the people what they are not able to do for themselves; i.e. defending the country, conducting foreign relations, building interstates, picking up the trash. When it comes to things like retirement plans, educating children or buying medical insurance, most people are capable of looking after themselves. In most cases, what democrats are really talking about is being the provider of last resort for all of these things. Democrats, in effect, play around the margins; those too dumb to save their money, those too lazy to put any effort into improving their own lives, are future democrats. The habitual complainers and whiners who are alert enough to cry about their own shortcomings, but not smart enough to actually do anything about them, are already democrats. In short, democrats don't believe in human nature: the idea that mankind, left to see to it's own devices, can find constructive ways to fulfill needs. Democrats play around these margins for two reasons: a) there's power in hooking the powerless (just ask Julius Caesar) and b) it makes them feel good about themselves to have appeared to have done anything at all. If democrats were serious about true, governmental issues, they would find ways to reduce the national debt without resorting to tax increases, fight terrorism with arms rather than platitudes and perhaps, on a good day, let business do it's thing all on it's own, allowing market forces to do the job they've proven they can do.

As for the candidates, let's run them down one at a time:

John Kerry - finsihed. He lost to a dummy, you know. Democrats don't just bury their dead, they bury their wounded. Kerry was a candidate of compromise within the party itself. Dean had the early lead, and the money, but was unelectable, and Liberman was tagged with association with Gore (although Lieberman might actually have won). In order to reconcile the rabid Deaniacs with the necessity of presenting a more reasonable alternative to America, Kerry was pushed into service. His strategy was to yell like a Deaniac and talk like a democrat. Consequently, he lost. A repeat performance is not in the offing.

Hilary Clinton - as if. The world would have to be circling the bowl before this woman could ever be President of the United States, however, she's been sainted by the morons in the party and will get the nomination if she wants it. In fact, she benefitted the most from Kerry's loss: there was absolutly no hope of Hilary beating a wartime-George Bush, particualrly when her husband had Osama on a silver platter at least five times. Let's not even mention the scandals. She stands a better chance in 2008 when there will not be a republican incumbant, and even then, barring some major catastrophe, it's an uphill battle for her. She'll run, but she turns people off and will lose, even if the republicans ran Simon LaGree against her.

John Edwards - positioned himself for another run with his defiant concession speech. His wife is being treated for cancer at the moment, and watch how quickly he becomes an advocate for breast cancer, despite the fact that he made his fortune suing the hell out of doctors. He currently hasn't got a job, having lost his senate seat, which quite frankly it's astonishing he actually got int he first place. Edwards is a serious lightweight, but he has an enormous ego. Ego will compell him to run again and ego will once again be his downfall. He's an arrogant moron in a fancy suit and smells of lawyer to boot.

All the talk of tapping a "moderate" democrat is just that: talk. You don't get anymore moderate than Joe Lieberman, after all. The real power int he deomcratic party, the lunatics of the Berkeley stripe, will never allow it to happen. They'd fracture the party and perhaps do to democrats what Ross Perot did to Republicans. Heck how else could Ralph Nader have become a political force?

Nope. In 2008 we'll either see a completely re-tooled and repackaged Hilary Clinton or another smug, condescending, elitist snob who can't find his own backside without a butler and a valet.

No comments: