Replies

The rats keep trying to hitch their broken wagons up to dead and dying donkeys.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1322238/posts

Democrat Implosion
Mens News Daily ^ | January 16, 2005 | Rudy Takala

Posted on 01/16/2005 9:29:28 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy

As the day of President Bush’s inauguration draws near, liberal organizations seem to be on the brink of implosion; they don’t know what policies to pursue, they don’t know who their chairman should be, and they don’t know whether they should attack the presidential inauguration as a bourgeoisie-perpetrated fraud or as simply too expensive.

Just recently on C-Span, a group of anarchists could be observed planning a protest to the inaugural ceremony. Other liberals have accused Bush of stealing 118,000 votes in Ohio. But as of late, the primary argument that they’ve asserted for the pursuit of their policies is that Bush doesn’t really have a mandate because the majority of Americans don’t really like the Republicans.

For example, the pro-abortion group NARAL recently sent an e-mail to its members stating, "As he prepares to begin his second term, Bush and his allies are using their trumped up 'mandate' to justify their dangerous and divisive anti-choice agenda. But if winning a slim majority of votes is enough to convince the President of his 'mandate,' then we would like to remind President Bush of just one thing: A majority of Americans supports a woman's right to choose.”

Which, apparently, is why NARAL opposes allowing Americans to vote on abortion. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal and prohibited the individual states from contradicting its legality; Roe v. Wade’s abolition would do nothing but allow the people to vote on it. It’s ironic that the majority of Americans are precisely what NARAL fears.

With regard to the “mandate,” it appears to be a point that the Democrats will continue to stress until the next election. Greg Mitchell ofEditor and Publisher wrote on November fifth, “It’s true that President Bush got more votes than any winning candidate for president in history. He also had more people voting against him than any winning candidate for president in history.” And in a recent e-mail of his own, James Carville wrote, “Bush and the Republicans can only get their way in 2005 if we Democrats forget our own power. They only win if we choose to stop fighting. But if we stick together, we can transform American politics." He spoke of "bullying political tactics and [Bush’s] ‘dangerous’ second-term agenda." Unfortunately, he didn’t elaborate on what “bullying tactics” Republicans were intent on using; most likely, it was the threat of campaigning against the Democrats’ positions.

On an issue related to their future response to these malicious tactics, they will also have to choose a new national chairman for their party in early February. Candidates for the position include Howard Dean and a former representative from Indiana, the pro-life Tim Roemer. The candidates have been focusing profusely on their future strategy in relation to Southern states. According to Howard Dean, his Southern strategy is to “show up." Tim Roemer said it wasn’t about “steering the bus” left or right, but rather “about expanding the bus."

But of course, the chances that they’ll elect a nationally palatable candidate such as Roemer are poor; the chairman of the Massachusetts Democrats has already referred to it as “extremely foolish.”

If Democrats wish to win elections again, they really must “steer the bus right” on cultural issues. In every election they lose, they fault the result on their own inability to “get their message out.” They fault it on their failure to “show up” and scream emphatically at rallies. However, in a nation where two parties constitute the extent of the political system, it’s a weak excuse. America is a nation in which a candidate for president can scream at a rally in Iowa and become the subject of radio stations in all fifty states within hours. Their defeat had more to do with the unpopularity of their ideas than their inability to explain them.

They appear to have come to a dim realization of this, as they haven’t expressed much interest in “the issues” in recent days. Rather, they’ve attacked Republicans as “dangerous,” “unpopular,” and “anti-choice.” Unfortunately, getting the message out about how unpopular Republicans are is not and will not become a very convincing tactic.

Democrats will win again eventually, as politics will continue to undergo its inevitable cycles. However, it will be some time before NARAL, Carville, the anarchists, and numerous other Democrats make the adjustments necessary for this to occur.

"The Office of Management and Budget at the Census Bureau defined the poverty threshold in 2003 as $18,810 for a family of four; $14,680 for a family of three; $12,015 for a family of two; and $9,393 for an individual."

Americans are so phenomenally wealthy that we insult entire continents such as Asia, Europe, and Africa by declaring that a family of 4 Americans earning $18,810 per year are all at what we consider to be starving and humiliating levels of "poverty."

Here in Alabama, where we have the same $18,810 per year threshold for "poverty" that applies to San Francisco and Manhattan, that $18,810 per year (which is tax free thanks to President Bush) will purchase a 2 bedroom house, electricity, a new car, gas, a telephone, a new TV, medical care, food, new clothing, and weekly nights dining out for the kids.

In 5 Points South (Birmingham), a 2 bedroom condo at a retirement high-rise rents for $300 per month. That includes monthly electricity and a 24 hour guard at the front desk. New pickup leases with no money down start at $124 per month.

Are we jaded to our vast wealth so much that more than $18,000 per year is considered total starving *POVERTY* in America, or are we simply being fed a meal full of abject propaganda from a left-wing news media anxious to inflate "poverty" statistics for their own vile political purposes?