Why Democrats Will Lose Again in ‘06'

ChronWatch ^ | June 20, 2006 | J. B. Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

Actions still mean more than words

I must admit that I do laugh every time I hear modern day socialists refer to themselves as “progressives,” as if their alleged interest in so-called “progress” is supposed to demonstrate some sort of advanced intelligence or heightened enlightenment or unusually keen sense of awareness and compassion. That's a tough sell for folks who still think the failed socialist principles of the past represent some kind of “progress” for our future, an idea that qualifies these folks for kinder-care, not national leadership.

Not all Democrats are self-styled “progressives” (socialists) of course, but all current leaders of the Democratic Party are, including Clinton, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Durbin, Dean, Murtha, Obama, and many more. A few Republicans qualify as “progressives” today, too: McCain, Hagel, Specter, Lugar, Chafee, and others. Even the ole compassionate conservative himself, George W. Bush is “progressive” on matters like illegal immigration, globalization, and his kinder-gentler war plan, designed not to offend our enemy. They call themselves “progressive” as in “seeking progress,” but their actions are purely socialist and most Americans know that there is nothing “progressive” about socialism.

Frankly, modern day socialists own and operate the American press too, from boardroom to anchor desk and everywhere in between. The current low approval ratings apply to the president, Congress, and the press. In fact, the unpopular president fares better in most polls than the even less popular Congress or press. As a result, the average red-blooded American still stuck on truth, honor, freedom, liberty, and the capitalist American way, are left looking for the “none of the above” box on every election ballot and searching the Internet for the truth they can no longer find in lamestream headlines.

[Theodore R.]

The political definition of "progressive" was coined about 1900. It refers to (1) a desire to lift the downtrodden of the central cities, (2) a desire to stop monopolies and unchecked growth of business, (3) a desire to stop political corruption. Progressives have failed as a whole but they believe they have succeeded.

In this sense, "progressive" does not mean "desiring progress," such as new public buildings, roads, etc.

[Theodore R.]

Yes, John, but the trouble with your advice here is that the "better" Republicans would lose under that scenario and the "bad" ones would likely still prevail. Voters are incapable of making such distinctions as you suggest.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Good... the more readers, the better! I don't understand the notion that double the exposure of a column like this is a bad thing???

What is the purpose of "free" republic exactly? To march to moderators rules, rat out nonsense guideline breakers, or spread news and information as far and wide as possible?

Tell me how double the exposure is a bad thing? I didn't do it on purpose... But what's the downside?

Sometimes, I feel like we spend more time fighting ourselves than the emeny...

[John Lenin]

The immigration bill is the final straw with me and I'm sure a lot of others. If the GOP wants to pass a bill that will put them out of power unless they turn into socialists I will help them out. It's no secret that the illegals when and if they become citizens will vote for the party with the biggest handouts. Bush is killing the conservative movement.