The Democrat
Frontrunners
by Paul R. Hollrah
So that the rest of us can better understand the Democrats’ process of
selecting their 2008 presidential candidate, it might be useful to take a closer
look at what Democrats and the Democrat Party are all about.
There are, basically, five identifiable kinds of Democrats, divided into two
major categories: "conscious" Democrats and "unconscious" Democrats.
"Unconscious" Democrats are the obedient, sheep-like, non-thinking, core of the
party. Without their unquestioning obeisance to the dictates of party elites the
party simply could not exist. "Unconscious" Democrats come in two basic types:
"Hereditary" and "Gullible."
· Hereditary Democrats are those who identify with the party because mommy
and daddy were Democrats. It makes no sense for them to thoughtlessly pull the
Democrat lever because, in doing so, they will almost invariably vote
against their own self-interests. However, following in mommy and daddy’s
political footsteps makes things a lot easier because it gives them an excuse
not to think for themselves.
· Gullible Democrats are those who were told early on in their political
lives that the party was the party of the "little guy" or the "common man."
While patently untrue, it seemed as good a reason as any to affiliate with the
party. And, being gullible enough to believe anything and everything they’re
told by party leaders, they took out a lifetime membership and never looked
back. They just pull the Democrat lever without ever thinking about what they’re
doing.
"Conscious" Democrats generally come in three basic varieties: "Progressive,"
"Evil," and "Self-Serving."
· Progressive Democrats are those who appear to be totally ignorant of what
our country is all about, who demonstrate little or no understanding of what
makes it tick, and who will support any silly notion so long as it represents
"change" or "new directions."
· Evil Democrats are those who see politics as nothing more than a game, a
game in which there are only winners and losers, and where losing is not an
option. For "evil" Democrats, the only true virtue is to win; the only sin is to
lose.
· Self-serving Democrats are all those who want something from
government. They have a personal stake in the party’s fortunes because it allows
them to increase either their own personal wealth or their own political clout.
Included in this category are public employees, teachers, trade unionists, trial
lawyers, ethnic minorities, radical feminists, radical environmentalists, gays,
lesbians, etc., etc.
Democrats who attend party caucuses or who vote in Democrat primaries in 2008
are confronted with a Hobson’s Choice because all three frontrunners… Hillary
Rodham Clinton, Barrack Hussein Obama, and John Edwards… fall into one or more
of the latter three categories. The Sam Nunn/Zell Miller wing of the Party, to
the extent it still exists, is totally unrepresented in the current crop of
presidential hopefuls.
For example, Barrack Hussein Obama is fond of promising "change" and "a new
direction," without ever specifying exactly what changes he would make or in
what new directions he would take the country. But that’s not unusual for
"conscious" Democrats; it is how they typically appeal to the "unconscious"
worker bees of the party.
Few honest observers would judge Obama to be "evil." Rather, he appears to be
a nice young man, albeit frightfully inexperienced, shamelessly ambitious, and
dangerously naïve. Should he become the party’s nominee, his biggest hurdles
will be: a) his Muslim background and his Muslim-sounding name, and b) his
ability to sell a "progressive" agenda to an electorate that is basically
conservative.
Senator Clinton clearly falls into all three categories. Like her husband,
she seeks power for the sake of power. And whether it be cattle futures trading,
the travel office firings, the accumulation of FBI files on Republicans, the use
of private investigators to intimidate her husband’s many lovers, the pardoning
of Puerto Rican terrorists, or illegal campaign contributions from Chinese
busboys and dishwashers, she walks a fine line on the edge of political
scandal.
And finally, former Senator John Edwards is clearly the most liberal, the
most self-serving, and the most evil of all the Democrat hopefuls. While railing
against "corporate greed" on the campaign trail, Edwards, himself, earned a
fortune as a trial lawyer, suing doctors and hospitals in dubious medical
malpractice lawsuits. In his first campaign for the White House, while a
freshman member of the U.S. Senate, Edwards raised $31 million, a major portion
of which came from contributions illegally "bundled" in plaintiffs’ law firms
across the country.
Then, when his wife was diagnosed with a recurrence of breast cancer in March
2007, he used the public announcement of that highly personal tragedy as a
device to jump-start his 2008 campaign. And while he paints himself as a
champion of the "little people," Edwards and his wife occupy a new $6 million,
28,000 sq. ft. house in North Carolina, where he shuns his lower middle class
neighbors and has not taken the time to even introduce himself to them.
These are the choices that Democrats face as they attend precinct caucuses in
Iowa and as they enter the voting booths across New Hampshire. The ultimate
winner will be determined by how much non-specific "change" and "new
directions," how much self-serving ambition, and how much sheer evil the
rank-and-file think they can handle.
