Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Double Talk

In deference to Barbara Newport, I will strive for brevity, but that is all I will give her. If she’s got complaints about me on a personal level, she (or anyone else, for that matter) can contact me at my ever-available e-mail address. Otherwise, I’d rather see her attempt to address my facts instead of my personality quirks. It never ceases to amaze me how myopic and vicious Democrats can be. I have spent the last few months exposing the heart of the Democratic Party. Not one person responding to me has been able to contradict one item that I’ve presented. The record of the Democratic Party on Civil Rights for blacks and women, and most other issues, has been abysmal.

Chuck Gregory has ineptly but valiantly tried to hold his own, but like a bad marksman he keeps missing the target ~ or in this case, the point. At best, Chuck tries to excuse the Democratic Party’s bigotry and racism - ‘it was the Reconstruction’s fault’ is the best he can do. Yet again, Chuck neglects to address the point, which was that the Democratic Party stood in defense of slavery for a century before Reconstruction. He compounds his failure by trying to pull a fast one with history. The simple truth is that the Democrats in 1876 selected Governor Samuel Tilden (D-NY) as their nominee for President. A simple review of his record shows that Tilden pledged support for "white supremacy" and "home rule." Furthermore, an honest and full reading of the history of that election reveals that, while both parties engaged in massive voter irregularites, it was only the Democrats who used intimidation and violence to keep hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of blacks from voting which, as most historians agree, invalidates any statistical analysis of the popular vote: "had Republicans been willing to intervene in defense of black [voting] rights, Tilden would never have come close to carrying the entire South." ( A Short History of Reconstruction 1863-77, Eric Foner, Harper & Row, 1990, p. 245) Finally, the Republicans took the White House through a deal arranged with the Democrats. The deal gave political power in the South back to the Democrats, who "pledged to respect the civil and voting rights of blacks. These promises were soon broken and the white supremacist Democratic Party asserted total dominance of the South. By the 1890s, the Democratic hold on the South resulted in a complete denial of voting rights for blacks until the 1960s."
The deal was the only way to avoid re-opening the Civil War and conclude an election that was already far too ugly. In short, the Democrats held the presidency and the peace of the nation hostage in order to regain power - this has a familiar ring to it. Nice try Chuck, but no cigar. (FYI, Chuck, I studied history throughout my educational career, including college, and I continue to study it, which is why I can tell the difference between political agenda and serious historical analysis.)

Deception has for so long been a part of the Democratic make-up that it seems to have grown to include self-deception. The Democratic Party can’t see the forest for the trees. They think everyone is like they are. When Bill Clinton started his campaign with "it’s the economy, stupid," claiming George H. W. Bush was another Herbert Hoover, the Democratic Party followed along. Somehow they missed the fact that the recession had been over for months before Bill started, and that the economy was actually in good shape. Oddly enough, the same things were said about George W. Bush, and again the recession which he was blamed for was actually a carry-over from Bill Clinton. But then, it’s always the same from the Left: doom-and-gloom claims without the slightest shred of proof.

With Democrats it’s all in the language. For Bill Clinton, it all depended on what the word ‘is’ is and what you mean by ‘alone’ - he was never really alone with Monica, because there were so many other people in the White House at the same time! Having lost the presidential election (again), Democrats were beside themselves trying to figure out why. They turned to George Lakoff , professor of linguistics, who’s advice was, basically, ‘change your labels.’ One thing they latched onto was values. It’s a tough concept but rather than actually looking at their party’s core values, they just changed their labels. Democrats believe judges deserve a straight up-or-down confirmation vote, but then filibuster them all. Democrats don’t believe in litmus tests, but then require them of all appointees. Democrats aren’t pro-abortion, they’re pro-choice - pay no attention to their voting record on partial-birth abortions. Democrats believe the death penalty is inhumane and cruel, unless you’re an invalid who can’t move or speak, then there’s a "right to death with dignity." (Where’s that one in the Constitution?) Out of dozens of Democrat Senators in Congress, only two spoke out for Terri Schaivo’s life. They were both running for re-election, but that had nothing to do with it. By the same token, withholding food and water from terrorist prisoners in Gitmo is torture, but starving and dehydrating Mrs. Schaivo gave her euphoria.

It’s called "projection" when you...well... when you project your feelings, thoughts, beliefs, whatever, onto someone else. Democrats have been doing this for decades. It’s part of the self-deception. When Bush made campaign promises and kept them, Democrats were surprised. A politician keeping campaign promises was a new concept to them. FDR proposed the Social Security safety-net, but set the age to qualify two years beyond the average life-expectancy. He’s hailed as a visionary and a great humanitarian. Now that’s delusional. I have never seen a Republican bumper-sticker that "Clinton Lied, People Died," but while he was defending his lies the USS Cole was bombed, Blackhawks were falling in Mogadishu, Americans were dying, in fact some were dragged through the streets and hung from street signs. So many "Bush Lied" stickers, but to date no proof of lies.

I’ll never forget Alec Baldwin’s tirade on the Conan O’Brian Show where he went on for some minutes about how Democrats would be justified in stoning Henry Hyde, his wife, and his children to death. But that’s not vitriol, no. How about the commercials where Republicans burn churches? Or the one where that little girl suggests that a Bush re-election was like watching her father be dragged to his death again? Republicans just don’t work that way. The most frightening vitriol I’ve ever seen has come from the Left. I just don’t see the down-right meanness, so often ascribed to the Right, coming from the Republicans.

I’m not surprised that my letters get people riled up. Vermont is a "blue state" and Springfield is certainly a "blue town." Democrats call themselves the party of tolerance, but as with their other claims, it rings hollow. The "politics of personal destruction" became art with the Democratic Party and, time and again, when they hear something they don’t like they assault the speaker. To Democrats, it seems the truth matters much less than the fiction they’d like to believe.

So I said I’d be brief. I took a lesson from the Democrats - it all depends on what your definition of ‘brief’ is..


Post a Comment

<< Home