Democrat Turmoil Reflects Liberal Dysfunction

Rush Limbaugh has been having a great time lately, fanning the flames of discord and confusion among the Democrats. But the ability to destabilize their party is hardly a dangerous manifestation of omnipotence on the part of the talk radio giant. Such turmoil could not be foisted on the Democrat Party from without, were it not already morally and philosophically rotting from within.

Consider all of the different fronts on which the Democrat Party lately finds itself in a total shambles. Along with the day to day revelations of the barnyard morality pervading the entire top echelon of New York’s state government, every new bit of news coming from the Democrat presidential race suggests an eventual crack up of the party no matter who wins the nomination.

In such a tainted atmosphere, it is highly unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) will gain much traction to define the debate during this election cycle with her sanctimonious rants about a Republican “culture of corruption.” And more of the same is likely to come.

The latest controversy du jour is that of Barack Obama and his “former” pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has openly preached racism and hatred for America throughout his career. Yet Obama initially claimed that, while remaining a member of Wright’s church for two decades, he had not been in the pews to hear such venomous sermonizing.

In essence, he offered his own version of the “I smoked it but did not inhale” defense. Upon facing irrefutable evidence to the contrary, he has since resorted to the “inappropriate relationship” posture. His timing for this strategy is particularly bad, considering the candidate against whom he is competing for the Democrat Party nomination.

Moreover, were his claims of innocence even remotely believable, it would not speak well of the seemingly bright Illinois Senator to be so oblivious after twenty years to this malignant elephant in the room. Perhaps, having been married only fifteen years, he has not yet been made aware of the similarly angry anti-American sentiments held by his wife Michelle. And in light of all this, one has to seriously wonder as a matter of national security just how long it might take him to notice the threats posed to this country by the Islamists.

Interestingly, he seems to exhibit a slightly deeper degree of discernment, and a markedly faster reaction time, when assessing any comment from his political opposition that contains even the slightest suggestion of disparagement against his own ethnicity or culture. In this, he bears far more commonality than contrast with Hillary, whose “steel trap” memory can suddenly degenerate to “I do not recall,” the instant the topic shifts to any of the innumerable Clinton scandals.

It is extremely telling that, with all of the critical and potentially dangerous issues facing the nation, the bulk of energy between these two Democrat campaigns has degenerated to a series of estrogen/melanin wars. Nevertheless, in its current condition, America can glimpse the reality of liberalism.

Mrs. Bill Clinton has her own set of problems. While Obama has clearly benefited at times from the “race/victim” card, which he invokes at any affront so slight as even the mention of his middle name, Hillary Clinton is no less a caricature of every liberal feminist absurdity with her strategically timed crying episodes and reflections on the alleged difficulties facing her as a candidate strictly, we are told, because she is a woman.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party machinery, behind closed doors, is no doubt panicking over the fact that according to its own thinking, Americans may not rally around either candidate, based on their competing minority subgroup statuses, in numbers sufficient to garner even a delegate majority within the party, let along a general election win. And having exploited the divisions in society for so many years along class, gender, and racial lines, the Democrats have set the stage for huge fractures and defections no matter who is selected as the nominee in the end.

America might indeed face widespread race riots in the event that the nomination is snatched from Obama’s grasp. But even that may pale in comparison the dire spectacle that America may witness if Hillary loses, and her sputtering feminist minions react with comparable outrage, many of them having reached the stage in life where bra burning could be construed as a “hate crime.”

Having proven himself to be the quintessential angry black separatist in sheep’s clothing, or at least someone who comfortably remains under the tutelage of that variety of “spiritual headship,” Obama is no more likely to appeal to a mainstream America that wants race to take its proper role in distant “back seat” behind character, than can Hillary distance herself from the sputtering ranks of embittered feminists.

In simple terms, this election has become extremely difficult for the Democrats to navigate. As a result of the candidates who have risen to the forefront, it is perhaps the first campaign where the different liberal subgroups are driving their respective races on a truly ideological basis.

In the past, the Democrat political sect has resulted from a conglomeration of disparate special interest groups, each of which is ultimately indifferent to the others, but all of whom can collectively benefit from the party’s successes.

It was in their common interests to further their agenda by thwarting those stodgy conservatives, who continually resist attempts to reinvent society’s morality and traditions according to the latest liberal fads. But of even greater importance is that with liberals in power, their various special interests, no matter how dissimilar in philosophy, can count on access to the public trough.

Thus, a totally mixed bag of anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-capitalist causes can, in normal years, rally to the party candidate and expect a continuation of their lifeline of federal funding. But with the ascendancy of pseudo feminist extraordinaire Hillary Clinton, and African American separatist sympathizer/national uniter Barack Obama, liberals are being forced into camps that overlap extensively when it comes to their usage of public funding, but contrast severely on their emotional appeal to the different “victim” groups.

On display here is the ugly reality of liberalism that for too long has remained hidden from real America, much like the appalling varieties of vermin which are present even in the best manicured gardens, but go unnoticed until somebody turns over a rock.

Ultimately, the similarities between the liberalism of Clinton and the liberalism of Obama, as reflected in their personal lives as well as their public lives, far outweigh any differences. And it is this grim truth about both potential Democrat nominees that should seriously concern America.

Were either compelled to face a real conservative in the general election, this race would already be over.

Democrat Turmoil Reflects Liberal Dysfunction
by Chris Adamo March 21, 2008
Rush Limbaugh has been having a great time lately, fanning the flames of discord and confusion among the Democrats. But the ability to destabilize their party is hardly a dangerous manifestation of omnipotence on the part of the talk radio giant. Such turmoil could not be foisted on the Democrat Party from without, were it not already morally and philosophically rotting from within. Consider all of the different fronts on which the Democrat Party lately finds itself in a total shambles. Along with the day to day revelations of the barnyard morality pervading the entire top echelon of New York’s state government, every new bit of news coming from the Democrat presidential race suggests an eventual crack up of the party no matter who wins the nomination. In such a tainted atmosphere, it is highly unlikely that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) will gain much traction to define the debate during this election cycle with her sanctimonious rants about a Republican “culture of corruption.” And more of the same is likely to come. The latest controversy du jour is that of Barack Obama and his “former” pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has openly preached racism and hatred for America throughout his career. Yet Obama initially claimed that, while remaining a member of Wright’s church for two decades, he had not been in the pews to hear such venomous sermonizing. In essence, he offered his own version of the “I smoked it but did not inhale” defense. Upon facing irrefutable evidence to the contrary, he has since resorted to the “inappropriate relationship” posture. His timing for this strategy is particularly bad, considering the candidate against whom he is competing for the Democrat Party nomination. Moreover, were his claims of innocence even remotely believable, it would not speak well of the seemingly bright Illinois Senator to be so oblivious after twenty years to this malignant elephant in the room. Perhaps, having been married only fifteen years, he has not yet been made aware of the similarly angry anti-American sentiments held by his wife Michelle. And in light of all this, one has to seriously wonder as a matter of national security just how long it might take him to notice the threats posed to this country by the Islamists. Interestingly, he seems to exhibit a slightly deeper degree of discernment, and a markedly faster reaction time, when assessing any comment from his political opposition that contains even the slightest suggestion of disparagement against his own ethnicity or culture. In this, he bears far more commonality than contrast with Hillary, whose “steel trap” memory can suddenly degenerate to “I do not recall,” the instant the topic shifts to any of the innumerable Clinton scandals. It is extremely telling that, with all of the critical and potentially dangerous issues facing the nation, the bulk of energy between these two Democrat campaigns has degenerated to a series of estrogen/melanin wars. Nevertheless, in its current condition, America can glimpse the reality of liberalism. Mrs. Bill Clinton has her own set of problems. While Obama has clearly benefited at times from the “race/victim” card, which he invokes at any affront so slight as even the mention of his middle name, Hillary Clinton is no less a caricature of every liberal feminist absurdity with her strategically timed crying episodes and reflections on the alleged difficulties facing her as a candidate strictly, we are told, because she is a woman. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party machinery, behind closed doors, is no doubt panicking over the fact that according to its own thinking, Americans may not rally around either candidate, based on their competing minority subgroup statuses, in numbers sufficient to garner even a delegate majority within the party, let along a general election win. And having exploited the divisions in society for so many years along class, gender, and racial lines, the Democrats have set the stage for huge fractures and defections no matter who is selected as the nominee in the end. America might indeed face widespread race riots in the event that the nomination is snatched from Obama’s grasp. But even that may pale in comparison the dire spectacle that America may witness if Hillary loses, and her sputtering feminist minions react with comparable outrage, many of them having reached the stage in life where bra burning could be construed as a “hate crime.” Having proven himself to be the quintessential angry black separatist in sheep’s clothing, or at least someone who comfortably remains under the tutelage of that variety of “spiritual headship,” Obama is no more likely to appeal to a mainstream America that wants race to take its proper role in distant “back seat” behind character, than can Hillary distance herself from the sputtering ranks of embittered feminists. In simple terms, this election has become extremely difficult for the Democrats to navigate. As a result of the candidates who have risen to the forefront, it is perhaps the first campaign where the different liberal subgroups are driving their respective races on a truly ideological basis. In the past, the Democrat political sect has resulted from a conglomeration of disparate special interest groups, each of which is ultimately indifferent to the others, but all of whom can collectively benefit from the party’s successes. It was in their common interests to further their agenda by thwarting those stodgy conservatives, who continually resist attempts to reinvent society’s morality and traditions according to the latest liberal fads. But of even greater importance is that with liberals in power, their various special interests, no matter how dissimilar in philosophy, can count on access to the public trough. Thus, a totally mixed bag of anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-capitalist causes can, in normal years, rally to the party candidate and expect a continuation of their lifeline of federal funding. But with the ascendancy of pseudo feminist extraordinaire Hillary Clinton, and African American separatist sympathizer/national uniter Barack Obama, liberals are being forced into camps that overlap extensively when it comes to their usage of public funding, but contrast severely on their emotional appeal to the different “victim” groups. On display here is the ugly reality of liberalism that for too long has remained hidden from real America, much like the appalling varieties of vermin which are present even in the best manicured gardens, but go unnoticed until somebody turns over a rock. Ultimately, the similarities between the liberalism of Clinton and the liberalism of Obama, as reflected in their personal lives as well as their public lives, far outweigh any differences. And it is this grim truth about both potential Democrat nominees that should seriously concern America. Were either compelled to face a real conservative in the general election, this race would already be over.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.