In light of recent events that have erupted in the political world regarding representative Foley, and a comment I received in which the liberal commenter stated that they believe "...most Americans...believe that they cannot trust Republicans in public office, and Democrats hold the moral high ground...and when the Republicans lose the radical religious right's hate-frenzy base, they have lost their voting base...", as well as being inspired by the
rightwingguy's own article regarding
The Hypocrisy of the Democrats (which is very well written and right on target), I decided to take a nice long look into this claim that the Republican Party cannot be trusted by the left, and as expected, found it full of idiocy and hypocrisy.
Let's think about this, now. The Democratic Party is obsessed with doom and gloom. Their agenda is to keep conservatives home from the voting booth, especially Christian Conservatives. But the attempt to get everyone to hate the Republican Party by spreading anti-Bush and anti-Christian propaganda commenserate of the lies spread by the now deceased Soviet Union (thanks to a Republican President, Ronald Reagan) against President Bush isn't working. His approval numbers are on the rise again.
So first they (the liberal left) turned on incumbent Republican Senator George Allen, digging up 30 year-old allegations of racism. The attack devolved into ugly smears and mudslinging, not to mention the fact that their racial accusations were unsubstantiated. And amidst the firestorm of liberal media speculation, the liberal left received a surprise when Allen's polling numbers went up, because it is obvious to the average voter that Allen was being railroaded, and no matter how carefully they orchestrated the attack, the intelligence of the American voter sniffed out that this was just another unconscionably despicable act of desperation by the Democratic Party. But why should anyone be surprised? Despicable activities is what the Democrats do.
When the
you-know-what hit the fan for the liberal left, a new report came out about the Haditha Massacre claim, refuting it, exposing the claim for what it was. False. In fact, everything seems to be backfiring against the liberal left. Everything. So, with their backs up against the wall, they had to pull out their ace in the pocket. Representative Foley. They had planned to use Foley's follies as a coup de grace, rather than as an early gunshot. But with the polling numbers heading in directions they do not desire, Bush's successful national security speeches, dropping gas prices, and positive economic outlook surveys, they had to spring the trap early.
A Democratic National Convention operative told the
American Spectator "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling held a five-seat majority if the election were held at the end of August. . .by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. We were looking at a disaster in the making. . .[the remedy?]. . .pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know and care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq. . .A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. . .Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule." And to the left's delight, the Foley story has become a bigger mess than anyone had expected.
But is the Foley situation truly a successful attack by the left? Or is it backfiring? First, the Democrats, because the "pages" that Foley communicated with were males, are coming across in some sectors of the public as gay bashers. Also, it has come out that the liberals knew of this since August, making it obvious they released this information at this time not because they were so concerned regarding the despicable acts by a trusted representative, but because it was the best strategic time to release the information, and fuel a full-blown scandal. Besides, since when is the Democratic Party against sexual misconduct? The party of the liberals is known for sex scandals, and then suddenly we are supposed to believe that they "hold the moral high ground"? Oh, please. Let's run down some of the sex scandals in Congress, and mind you, this is only the Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress (coupled with how the Democrats looked the other way or condoned the actions of their people):
Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress Information compiled from the Washington Post, “
Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.
10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.
9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.
8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.
7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.
6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.
4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.
3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.
1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.
And that's only in Congress. That's not even remotely zeroing in on Clinton's scandals. (Bill wears flannel underwear to keep his ankles warm!)
And now, as Rightwing Guy has so accurately indicated in his article, "The Democrats have come out in mass numbers to attack the Bush administration's handling of the North Korea situation. . . saying that [Bush] has not been aggressive enough and that Iraq has taken away his focus."
Terry points out in that same article that the same Dems assaulted Bush for going it alone regarding Iraq and that he didn't try hard enough for a peaceful solution. . .and now they are criticizing him for taking a position of searching for a peaceful solution. Now the left states that he should have been more proactive in his dealings with North Korea. . . honestly, I like Bush, and I would never, ever desire a Democrat in office, but let's be honest, if Reagan had faced this situation, Navy fighters would have been ordered to commence upon an American air strike against North Korea as he did with Libya - - wait, that is wrong. Reagan would never have allowed the North Korean situation to get to this point in the first place. He would have isolated the government while helping the people. Remember, because of Reagan's strategies, the Soviet Union disappeared. North Korea is in the middle of a famine. Manutrition runs rampant throughout that country. More than 200,000 North Koreans are imprisoned in concentration camps. Reagan would have funneled every American dollar he could into providing food and aid through a system of private activity consciously designed to undermine the dictatorship, and as the food and aid was shipped in from every direction the energy of the government would have been focused on this problem of their citizens being thankful to the helpful Americans, thus taking their authority away, and a lot of people, as in Eastern Europe, would have created subverssive organizations and parties and would have taken action against the government, until the dictatorship splintered and fragmented and became no more.
But that is what Reagan would have done.
Bush is not Reagan, and I understand that, but thank God he's not a Kennedy, or a Kerry, or a liberal by any name. One thing that Bush does share with Reagan is the principle of leading us by choosing what he feels is best for the nation's overall security (not making his decisions based upon what the polls suggest, or crumbling under the idiotic attacks of the liberal left).
So, to "Rick and Kathy", the liberals that deposited their comment anonymous this time, probably because last time they left a comment I visited their site and proclaimed on Political Pistachio that they laughingly claimed to be Christian Liberals (so I suppose it is Christian to support the murder of unborn children, to shrug off sexual misconduct as they did with Clinton's BJ's delivered by our favorite Monica, dirty play in politics, taxing the people to death, double taxation as with the death tax, attacking the corporations and small businesses with heavier taxes as a penalty for becoming successful which in turn undermines our economic growth and stability, supporting a party that is proud of being Godless as Anne Coulter exposed, etc etc etc), you are wrong. You said that the Republicans cannot be trusted in public office. Answer?
Only the Republicans can be trusted in office. You said that the Democrats hold the moral high ground. Answer? Hardly. One Republican sex scandal versus numerous Democratic sex scandals along with the fact that the Democrats are against censorship (ask the Mondales and Kerrys), support gay marriage, promote sex education in the schools to be applied at a younger age than it already is, and the association of the doom and gloom cut and run party with Hollyweird's immoralism, I hardly think that the Democrats could be even remotely considered as holding any position on moral high ground, unless that high ground is a hill somewhere in the depths of Hell. As for the religious right being a hate-frenzy base? Why? Because they support the war in Iraq? Because they support profiling? Listen, leftists, the war is on terrorism, and Iraq is a part of it, and if I hear another argument that we should have left Iraq alone because they weren't a part of 9/11 I'm gonna scream. I suppose we shouldn't have gone into Germany either, because they weren't a part of Pearl Harbor. And profiling is what stopped the last 9/11 style attack that was attempted to be launched from Britain. As for losing the Bible Belt's votes? Hardly. Goes back to that abortion, gay marriage, censorship argument. Besides, the problem of losing votes hardly is a problem to the conservative right. Nobody is losing any voters. The left made that up, as they do the polls. Last I checked, if you remember from earlier in this article, the election has changed from a 5-seat Republican advantage to a 15-seat Republican advantage.
Quick, the liberal boat is sinking, come up with another attack, quick!
Hey, liberals. I have an idea. How about you learn how to debate the issues, make decisions that will protect America, and quit aligning yourselves with socialistic political agendas that is designed to undermine and destroy liberty and freedom?
Oh, and now for a statement that no member of the liberal left has the ability to understand: God Bless America!
(for more, check out the last few videos I have on www.politicalpistachiovideos.blogspot.com - - a couple of which was discovered by my good friend Bushwack at
American and Proud of it.