Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The Democrats are in big trouble. In fact, I foresee a landslide victory on the presidential level that will utterly dishearten the leftists' movement for years to come.

Why? Because today the Democrats are wholly controlled not by reasonable people whose ideology is basically the same as the rest of America, with differences defined by degree (for example, the vast majority of Americans believe in at least some socialist welfare programs, the difference being what and how much). Instead the powers within the Democrat Party are radical leftists, people whose vision of not just the issues but of man are diametrically opposed to both the beliefs of the American people (and have led to disaster -- both overseas and in America -- wherever they have been implemented).

Further, this radical left has no use for "moderate" Democrats (read: Joe Lieberman)and, in many ways, sees them in much the same way the Islamists see the apostate -- as even worse than the infidel.

Make no mistake, while primary politics has always seen candidates take positions more to the left or to the right of where they end up in the general election campaign, these leftist ideologues will not allow their candidate to "move to the center" once the general election campaign begins in earnest.

While the betrayal of Joe Lieberman is an indication of the power the radical leftists hold over the Democrat Party, what is truly telling about it was not just that the radical left betrayed him, but so, too, did his friends and colleagues who believed, for their own sake, that it was better to lose in a seat in the Senate (and thereby risk losing control of the Senate) than it was to buck the far-leftist powers.

It is not unusual for the "amateurs" -- those whose job will still be there whichever way the election turns out (like Michael Moore, Sean Penn, etc), to not care about the realities of getting elected and to pursue a wholly ideological end. Liberals are VERY good at holding onto their beliefs when THEY have nothing to lose (see Al Gore and global warming as HE spews pollution at twenty times the average amount).

What is telling is that it was the PROS -- the Senators and Congressman -- who betrayed Lieberman making the calculated choice that their own future was better thrown in with the radicals than with their friend, colleague and multi-term Senator.

Yet even further evidence of how deeply in control of the Democrat Party are the radical leftists was the elevation of Howard Dean to the most powerful position in the Democrat Party.

Once again, the choice facing the professionals was between the reasonable and rather centrist Evan Bayh and the arguably insane, and virulently anti-American Howard Dean. That the amateurs would side with Dean was, of course, a foregone conclusion. But it wasn't the amateurs who gave Dean all of that power, it was the professionals.

So where does this leave the Democrats as we enter the 2008 presidential campaign? It leaves them in big trouble.

It looks like, despite all of her advantages (name, the most vicious and devoid of conscience campaign team) Hillary Rodham-Clinton is in serious trouble. Her competition? A wholly inexperienced, one-term senator whose campaign platform is comprised of meaningless slogans such as "hope" and "change."

Why is Ms. Rodham-Clinton in so much trouble? Because she miscalculated on a number of levels.

First, she thought that her nomination was a foregone conclusion. After all, who else was out there? Besides, her husband is the consummate manipulator and she had all those leftist friends in Hollywood kicking in millions and so on.

Thinking she had it all wrapped up she moved to the center as if she were already running a general election campaign. But the radical leftists have no use for a reasonable person (again, see Lieberman and Bayh)and, because they are the amateurs, have no vested interest in victory.

If Rodham-Clinton now TRIES to move to the left to win back the "love" of the hate-America-always crowd, she risks both reinforcing the (rightly earned) image of someone who has no beliefs and is just personally desperate for power to validate her existence and to lose whatever number of normal people might have been duped by her seeming reasonableness, running, as she was, more to the center.

That she is being abandoned by longtime friends -- not to mention the party regulars -- is not surprising, then.

Rodham-Clinton also miscalculated in thinking that this was 1992 and not 2007. Remember, back in 1992 Bill could be all things to all people because "the truth" was controlled by a handful of gate-keepers, all in lockstep with the leftist agenda. Bill could say one thing while campaigning in the Midwest, utterly contradict himself that evening at a fundraiser in Hollywood, secure in the knowledge that the same people who forged documents to help John Kerry a decade-later, would cover his tracks for him on the campaign trail.

Since 1992, however, Fox News has broken the stranglehold on information previous doled out at the whim of the leftist pretty-boys in New York and Atlanta, while center-right talk radio has grown and the blogesphere has democratized (lower case "d") the dissemination of information.

Besides, the leftist media has no use for Ms. Rodham-Clinton, either. These folks who continually misreport the state of the war against Islamic fascism, won't even call the terrorists "terrorists," and who in every way agree with the most radical agenda of the Democrat Party, have no love for Clinton since she attempted to move to the center.

This leaves, as Ann Coulter calls him, B. Hussein Obama, as the star candidate for the leftists -- one smart enough to say nothing, stand for nothing, and let Hillary continue to plummet.

But this won't work in the general election. While the people may want "change" they are not stupid. A one term senator who says nothing and stands for nothing will not be able to beat real candidates with real positions -- positions that the radical leftists may not like, but the American people do.

33 comments:

Huge-O Chavez said...

Compromise is no longer in the New Left's vocabulary. It has become, "Win at any/all cost!" No wonder so many New-Lefties are sympathetic to my cause and have come to hate traditional Lefties like Lieberman.

"Progressive" New Left Liberalism has metastisized into the religion du jour. They ostracize all heretics to their gay-PC International Marxist multicultural environmentalism. Cause let's face it, it's much harder to rationally support all their whacky PETA-esque causes with argument and any degree of consistency than it is to emulate Torquemada and persecute the Galileos of their "old" faith.

Matt Tracker said...

Welcome Back Evan! We've been waiting a long time! Early Christmas for me!

Evan Sayet said...

The left does not compromise because they think that we're evil. Prager says that Republicans think Democrats are stupid and Democrats think Republicans are evil.

The reason for this (this is me talking) is the same. We think they're stupid because they don't discriminate (between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse). They think we're evil because we DO discriminate between these things.

This is why the left calls anyone who disagrees with them Hitler. Hitler discriminated against the Jews, Rudolph Giuliani discriminated against the crack addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times Square. Since neither was INDISCRIMINATE they are both "evil discriminators."

Hitler discriminated against the Catholics, George Bush discriminated against the Islamic fascists. Since neither was INDISCRIMINATE they are both "evil discriminators."

Since you and I discriminate between right and wrong, we, too, are "evil discriminators" who the Democrats nothing less than hate on par with Hitler.

Since, to the Democrat, Islamic fascism is no better and no worse than free and open democracies, Nancy Pelosi can come to no other conclusion than that we LIKE war because otherwise why would we fight these lovely, lovely Islamic fascists?

Farmer John said...

...that has to have been the most ignorant comment she's made in a LONG time. It's almost as her outrageous "All Republicans are Corrupt" argument of 2006.

Sorry Nancy, but I remember Big Tommy's antics getting YOUR MOTHER indicted.

Anonymous said...

This nutcase is a comedian alright...only all his funny stuff in UNINTENDED.

Anonymous said...

...
Republicans think Democrats are stupid and Democrats think Republicans are evil.

Wow...this hyperactive dunce sets up more straw men than a wheat farmer...no, buddy, we say the right is evil AND stupid. You say we're stupid when it's convenient and you say we're overeducated elitist intellectuals when that's convenient...that is because the rightist cannot deal in facts OR consistency.

droyzad said...

Haha...good stuff on that forecasting, but here are some of those facts you love so much...

Bush Stirs Young Voters' Enthusiasm for Democrats, Ballot Box
By Catherine Dodge

Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush has made a strong impression on younger Americans; it's not the one Republicans wanted.

Faster than you can say ``Facebook,'' the under-30 set is moving toward the Democratic Party. That is forcing Republicans to redouble their appeals to these voters, who are heading to the polls in bigger numbers, reversing years of declining participation. The shift may have implications for Republicans beyond 2008.

``Younger voters are critical,'' said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster who isn't affiliated with any candidate. ``There's a good deal of evidence that partisan inclinations reached when you first go through your formative political years tend to be reasonably stable.''

Forty-four percent of 18-to-29-year-olds consider themselves Democrats, while 23 percent identify with the Republican Party, according to a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. It wasn't always this way: President Ronald Reagan won 59 percent of the youth vote in his 1984 bid for a second term.

``It cannot help your party if you're a Republican to have had many people come of age in an administration that has so botched so many enterprises,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, director of Opportunity 08, a broad study of the electorate by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Issues

Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Washington-based Pew Research Center, which has done extensive polling of young voters, said the Bush administration's social- conservative positions don't resonate with those voters, who are more concerned about Iraq, global warming, health care and economic security.

The Republicans, he said, are finding it difficult ``to attract younger people who are not hung up on gay marriage and gay rights and immigration.''

That is also the view of 19-year-old Lindsey Carmen, who plans to vote and is ``definitely'' leaning toward the Democratic Party. Bush ``takes too much of his strong Christian faith into the political arena,'' said Carmen, a student at the University of Maryland in College Park.

A landmark 1964 study by researchers at the University of Michigan showed that two-thirds of people who remembered how they voted in their first election stuck with the same party though adulthood.

Growing Weight

For the political parties, winning over this crop of younger voters -- known as ``Millennials,'' ``Gen-Next'' or ``DotNets'' -- is becoming increasingly critical because of their growing clout as a segment of the electorate. Those voters will number about 50 million in the 2008 election and are likely to make up about a third of the electorate in 2015, according to a study by Democracy Corps, a Washington-based research group, and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Washington-based Democratic polling firm.

Evan Sayet said...

Children always vote Democrat. When they get out into the real world and mommy and daddy aren't providing them with free food and rent, when they have to work, when they have children who are sentenced to the leftist indoctrination centers called the public schools (where they are almost guaranteed to graduate illiterate) they become Republicans, just like the other grownups.

As for recognizing that Democrats are stupid, being over-educated is part of the reason for their stupidity. They are locked for even longer in the indoctination centers, taking another half-decade or longer before they ever enter a world that isn't on a school playground.

'A' for Andronicus said...

Facts are the results of deeds, not intentions or opinions of the moment. Tell me the results of actual votes, not which party the voters were registered with. Because until that happens, there are no "facts", merely "opinions". And every *sshole has one of those, which is subject to change every second of every day.

izzy said...

Lock this poor man up...when you can say stuff like this below after seven years of GW, you are seriously in need of attention from monkey tenders.

Sayit in Psycholingo sez: Instead the powers within the Democrat Party are radical leftists, people whose vision of not just the issues but of man are diametrically opposed to both the beliefs of the American people (and have led to disaster -- both overseas and in America -- wherever they have been implemented).

Anonymous said...

This poor sick guy is in such pain over the disaster of the right wing movement he can' help himself anymore...look at this pathetic delusion:

"they become Republicans, just like the other grownups."

The EVIDENCE and FACTS are all in the opposite direction. You need a dolly to hold...more substantial than delusions.

translatorguy said...

As for recognizing that Democrats are stupid, being over-educated is part of the reason for their stupidity. They are locked for even longer in the indoctination centers, taking another half-decade or longer before they ever enter a world that isn't on a school playground.

He means he wasn't educated himself and is like todully ignorant of the real world.

Farmer John said...

The EVIDENCE and FACTS are all in the opposite direction.

Yes, the evidence and facts that you've presented thus far is a 2nd hand excerpt of a poll done by a lefty newspaper along with some lefty statements by Bush-haters.

Wow, I'm impressed. NOT!

I think it's pretty obvious who the evidentiary/fact impaired one is...

Farmer John said...

After all...the LA Times/Bloomberg group is not the most reliable poll source.

They like to, in technical terms, make sh*t up.

Anonymous said...

Farmer John said...AKA DeeFenSeevMoron says:

After all...the LA Times/Bloomberg group is not the most reliable poll source.

They like to, in technical terms, make sh*t up.

Read em and weep, creep.

Pwn'd by Evan Sayet said...

I'd like to but the candlelight is too dim and your foot is in the way...

heatingtheearth said...

Thank you Evan for consistently taking the time to illustrate the behavioral traits which define the population of liberal progressives.

One of these traits, the complete absence of interest in or ability to be persuaded by factual information, is truly fascinating to me. The trait appears to be as prevalent among the population of highly educated liberal progressives as it is among the least educated.

A commonly perpetuated delusion of grandeur among liberals is that the population of liberals is vastly more intelligent and educated than the population of right-wing conservatives (the population of church-going Christians being the lowest extreme of both IQ and education scales).

Reality... is that Socialist-leaning, left-wing, Democratic voters are substantially less educated than their Republican counterparts. In fact, the more successful & educated you are, the less likely you are to be leftist.

So that I cannot be accused of supporting my argument with data from the "Hitler Right," I submit the following data from the Communist Left polling organization USA Today / Gallup Poll:

1990 Gallup poll numbers relating education to political affiliation:

Rep = Republican
Dem = Democrat
Ind = Independent/Unaffiliated

Grade school education:
23.4% Rep, 54.6% Dem, 22.5% Ind

Some High School:
22.8% Rep, 51.3% Dem, 26.0% Ind

High School Grad:
29.4% Rep, 40.5% Dem, 30.2% Ind

Some College and/or Tech:
36.0% Rep, 35.0% Dem, 29.3% Ind

College Grad:
42.0% Rep, 30.7% Dem, 27.7% Ind

(Source: The World Almanac of U.S. Politics, 1991-93 edition, p.25)

As you can see, in 1990 the better educated you were the more likely you were to be a Republican, and the less likely you were to be a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

$10 says "Translator Guy" is a Spanish language translator...

Elitegal said...

SuperFishal says:
As you can see, in 1990 the better educated you were the more likely you were to be a Republican, and the less likely you were to be a Democrat.

The democrats are made up of a true intellectual elite of both intellect and morality combined with the undreclasses who they represent and for whom they struggle. Therefore, the overall averages reflect that division.The GOP is made up of a pack of sociopathic, but educated people who use their education only for MONEY and PROFIT along with a truly stupid underclass of angry maroons and goofball fundies...know aptly as wingbats ... who they use to attempt to achieve numerical parity. Their educated class is a predatory, self serving, lower order of being who may have respectable IQs but who have nothing else...semi-human,Bush/Rovian freaks.

Academe said...

Great show, elitegal, but there's another major aspect...this was a well selected poll from almost twenty years ago...for a reason...at that time, there was a high water for college conservatives. As we have seen, that has changed dramatically and most college age youth are now going very strongly in the opposite direction.

Pwn'd by Evan Sayet said...

Evidence for your contention, academe (and leave your LA Times/Bloomberg opinion polls at home).

Pwn'd by Evan Sayet said...

Cause I haven't seen any evidence of truth in your assertions

texlibsondarize said...

TakingitupthedirttrackfromSayet actually whines:

Evidence for your contention, academe (and leave your LA Times/Bloomberg opinion polls at home).

Gimme some evvydents but leave your evvydents at home...The LATimes is now controlled by right wingdings, maroon...suck it and die.

Pwn'd by Evan Sayet said...

Have the fired the LA Times editorial board yet? They should. They're destroying the paper's repution by the minute.

You know those libby fanatics. It's either their way, or they burn it ALL down. And THAT is what they're doing presently at the LA Times.

'A' for Andronicus said...

...as the Gay vulture, David Geffen, circles overhead... waiting to clean up on a fire sale.

Cookie said...

Baby Jeebus...looks like sayet's little kkkrotch monkkkey's not gettin enough oxygen to his lone synapse.

Pwn'd by Evan Sayet said...

...and the racist cookkkie can't kkkeep his mind off tonight's kkklan rally. He's supposed to bring the matches.

Tom Wright said...

TakinitintheassfromSayet says it's lonely in Sayet's shorts with only his "boys" to talk to. And Cookie is of the higher gender, factbender.

Farmer John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
notbrightwright said...

The cookkkie castrati is of a higher gender? Higher pitched, perhaps.

opux d.I. said...

justnotbright said...
The cookkkie castrati is of a higher gender? Higher pitched, perhaps.


Haha...it don't take much to goose a chauv pig...they're so insecure...all they got it is there gender. Hey, buddy, you got your race, too...what about that...pink ass little dink.

BenDover4me said...

You must be excited AND lookin' in a mirror, dick breath.

Damon said...

But this won't work in the general election. While the people may want "change" they are not stupid. A one term senator who says nothing and stands for nothing will not be able to beat real candidates with real positions -- positions that the radical leftists may not like, but the American people do.

Our recent election Down Under may be cautionary.

Our new Prime Minister (approx = President) was once the Chief of Staff of (the State of) Queensland's Premier (approx = Governor) -- Kevin Rudd.
His campaign was based around being just like the (now ex) PM John Howard, but younger.
He promised almost nothing except "younger, newer"
He stood for nothing, really, except that.

And...lots of people voted for him (or his party...the same thing)

Now that they're in power (the Labor Party approx = Democrats), "Now we're in power, every thing is different, we'll change everything"

"B. Hussein Obama" strikes me as the same...