Skip to comments.THE DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (repost) I've been wanting to repost this post
Posted on 11/03/2004 5:37:59 AM PST by crushelits
THE DEATH OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | OCTOBER 28, 2004 | BARBARA STOCK
Posted on 10/27/2004 10:07:22 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The Death of the Democratic Party Written by Barbara Stock Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Democrat Party of my father is dead. It started to die with Lyndon Johnson and the ''Great Society.'' Jimmy Carter crippled it, but it could have been saved. Bill Clinton put a stake in its heart and John Kerry has let his party bleed to death. There is no hope now. The Democrat Party is almost devoid of morals, honesty, or integrity. Its members have thrown it all away in their rush for power and in their headlong plunge towards socialism. The liberals dont even try to keep it secret anymore. They dont care who knows. They just keep lying.
To win the election in 1991, the Clinton camp put out their ''October Surprise.'' Lawrence Walsh handed down a last-minute indictment of Casper Weinberger and that tipped the scale in Clintons favor. Interestingly, if one checks, he will find that the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy was chaired by none other than Senator John F. Kerry. Perhaps Bill Clinton climbed out of his sick bed to repay a favor.
In 2000, a Democrat operative leaked the news of a George Bush drunk driving arrest that was 25 years old. It nearly cost Bush the election.
This year the Democrat lie-machine has been moving at warp speed. The truly horrifying thing is that Democrats have openly been joined by their ultra-liberal friends in the media. The New York Times has totally sold its soul to the Kerry campaign. CBS has sacrificed 50 years of credibility to assist John Kerry. Can anyone now believe anything either of these once irrefutable sources of news puts forth? Not only has the Democrat Party committed suicide, it has taken many great American icons with it. It was all done in the name of power and the need to regain it.
The Democrat Party never recovered from loosing the Congress in 1994. Democrats have been bitter and angry ever since. When Al Gore lost in 2000, the rage turned into blind hatred. Democrats perpetuate the lie that the Supreme Court ''gave'' the election to Bush. They did not. Democrats continue to insist that a million African Americans were ''disenfranchised'' in the last election in Florida. They were not. Now they circulate a disgusting pamphlet that tells minorities if they try to vote, evil Republicans will hit them with fire hoses ''like they did in the 1960s.'' Pay no mind to the fact that most of those using fire hoses were following the orders of southern Democratic governors.
For the 2000 election, Democrats put out ads that showed a man being dragged to death behind a truck while saying Bush was against severe penalties for ''hate crimes.'' This ad ran while the men responsible for that very crime were on death row. Is there a more severe penalty than death for such a crime? Are not most murders ''hate crimes?'' Then the liberals have the gall to accuse Bush of executing more people than any other governor--which was another false statement.
Can todays Democrats say anything that is not a lie? Is it possible anymore? Do they care? If they cant win an election honestly, then they will just lie and cheat.
Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft has reported that four counties have now been found to have more people registered than actually live in the counties and are eligible to vote according to the last census. The old Democrat saying ''vote early and often'' is alive and well. Be sure to drag dead or senile grandma with you so you can vote for her as well.
Now we have this year's ''October Surprise.'' The Democrats, in concert with the New York Times and CBS, are trying to convince Americans that Bush allowed 350 tons of high explosives to fall into the hands of the enemy. The way the story was written, it sounded as though the explosives were stolen last week or yesterday. As it turned out, they probably were not stolen at all.
The plan of the editors was a good one, but they forgot about those pesky reporters who were embedded with the troops. The reporter embedded for NBC, Dana Lewis, now with Fox News, states that he saw no weapons with the IAEAs seal on them as he walked the complex when the troops arrived on April 10, 2003. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watch-dog group, had reported in February 2003, that some of the high explosives had already been moved. The IAEA also reported huge explosions at that site during the opening days of the war. One has to ask, since these weapons were illegal under the United Nations agreement with Saddam, why were they not removed and destroyed when they were found by the IAEA?
The last visit from the United Nations organization was in January of that year. Sometime between January and April, Saddam probably moved many of those explosives. A complete inspection of the site was done on May 27, 2003, and nothing with an IAEA seal was present. There were several deep craters. How does one get 40 semi-truck loads of high explosives out past roads teaming with American soldiers and the sky full of spy planes without being seen? Who would have organized such an operation? The Saddam government was in chaos and there was no insurgency at that early date.
Why then did the Mohamed El Baradei, chastised by Bush for not know about Libyas weapons of mass destruction program and being weak in its dealings with Iran, leak this story to the media? Remember, El Baradei knew these explosives were missing in May 2003, when it was reported to him that our inspectors had found no such weapons at that complex. Why did he wait until one week before the American election to reveal this ''news?'' Could it be that the mighty and corrupt United Nations feels its world supremacy is threatened by President Bush? Is it possible that it would feel much more comfortable with John Kerry who has already pledged his allegiance to the United Nations and stated that dying under the U.N. flag is honorable, but dying under the American flag is not? John Kerry voted against the Gulf War because he felt the war should have been carried out by United Nations commanders, not American generals. Kerry wanted to do the unthinkable--put American troops under foreign command.
This election year has been like no other. Outside interference from Europe in the form of mass e-mail messages pleading with Ohioans to vote for Kerry and British newspapers printing columns with statements like ''Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?'' Terrorists like Yassar Arafat endorse John Kerry. Forged documents and blatant lies abound. Democrats have sold their souls to the devil in an attempt to regain their power, and the devil wants his due.
Hopefully, Americans will bury this rotting and decaying Democratic Party on November 2, 2004 without allowing it to totally corrupt our democratic system beyond repair. If we are lucky, Bush will win in such a decisive manner that Kerrys army of 10,000 lawyers, poised to make the election a living hell, will be sent home. A new Democratic Party may rise from ashes and if it does, I hope that there will be at least a few honest people among them. But at this point, Im not going to place any bets on it.
About the Writer: Barbara is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara receives e-mail at email@example.com.
Dem Problems - A great political party can't thrive on snob appeal.
Speaking of the death of the Democratic party, go over to DU to witness a meltdown first hand. I cannot stop laughing. It really is amusing--you won't be sorry.
No. But the Dem Party will move solidly back into the Clinton control.
x42 moved to center to win and govern. Hilllary will move the Party the same way. She isn't as stupid as Kerry, Dean, et al, to think the liberal wing wins National elections. She will build a more centrist Dem Party the next four years, in preparation for 2008.
The truest statement this morning is the title of Zell Miller's book- A National Party, No More.
D*MN, IT FEELS GOOD TO BE A FREEPER!!!Great morning!
I wish it was truly dead.
Liberalism still has its fanatical adherents, and they still flock to the democratic party looking toward the next election. These people are a festering sore on the political landscape.
I personally think a big surprise is coming from the US Democrats on policies soon. I predict Hillary Clinton will adopt Bush's WOT to the full, and she will act like New Zealand's Roger Douglas by putting forth free market reforms of superanniuation (social security) on the table, and who knows, maybe a Singapore-style medical care scheme as well. These three will take enough winds out of the Republican platform and make Hillary the first female President of the United States.
I've been predicting the party will dissolve, then return with a hyphenated name. It will contain the word 'green" or "children and families"...
And still, God be praised, the good guys won!
You may be right, but by whatever name it returns as there will always be a hidden slash (.../Socialist) after it.
Somewhere, at this moment, Terry McAuliffe sits alone in a hotel room reading the Help Wanted ads.
Thanks for reposting this article. She says alot of what needs saying (with a few exceptions - i.e., The start of the modern socialist elements in the RAT party appeared at the national level with FDR) and she nails the major indictments as clearly as Luther's thesis' on the Wirtemberg door.
Let us hope that they will enter a genuinely irreversible death spiral and fragment for several generations. A word of caution: Do NOT say that they have already been destroyed as this would be our Achiles heel of foolhardy hubris.
"Why did he wait until one week before the American election to reveal this ''news?'' Could it be that the mighty and corrupt United Nations feels its world supremacy is threatened by President Bush?"
First major act in second term-pull out of the damn UN.
Leave them to debate their own irrelevance.
The only hope for the Dems is to purge the clintonistas-McAuliffe, Carville, Lockhart, et al...
but dont tell them...
We better not listen to this and start watching that steam roller bit@# in the US Senate from New York.
Starting my Neener Attack list for 2008 . . .
I like your thinking....We should nominate all of them for the Nobel Prize in The Emporer Has No Pants On category-they just might win!
Obama was on Fox news this morning warning about the Democratic Party's OBESSION with power for the past four years. So far, he's the only one who gets it. I need to find out more about this guy.
Carl Rove did a magnificent job.
Last night, Carville was actually making sense...saying that Dems need to start looking at themselves and looking at the traditional values that were reflected in this election. Start looking at their leadership and what values they wanted reflected in that. I was genuinely surprised.
I think the best thing that we have is that the Dems COMPLETELY underestimate WHO we are. They truly believe we are all redneck, bible-thumping idiot, bigots. It's a shame, but in the end especially in this election it was to our advantage.
They had no idea who we are, so they had no idea what to expect.
It just goes to show that you can't replace somebody with NOBODY.
I can't tell you how much fun it is to engage someone in a casual conversation in a line at a bank, supermarket etc., steer them into a political conversation and have them bashing "Bush-Cheney" and then ask them to explain.....gets them everytime and the sudden look of panic in their in eyes in that split second when it sinks in that I'm "one of them" is great.
It's right up there with chumming a school of bluefish into a feeding frenzy with a bucket of pogeys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.