With liberals firmly in control of its policies, the Democratic Party has retreated from the real world into a lotus-eaters’ land of drug-induced fantasy. As in the Presidential election campaign of 1884, Democrats in this Fall’s Congressional campaigns are relying upon mud-slinging negativism.
The Democratic party stands for little other than the assertion that the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone free medical care and unimpeded wallowing in drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, abortion, and same-sex marriage.The other leg of Democrats’ socialist catechism is appeasing Islamic jihadists and sensitivity for everyone but religious Jews and Christians.
With nothing positive to campaign upon, Democrats and their propaganda machine are reverting to phony accusations of the sort perpetrated by CBS hatchet-man Dan Rather. Moth-eaten falsehoods are being revived by books and media articles timed for release in the last few weeks of the election campaign.
The New York Times continues its practice of selectively quoting portions of leaked national-security documents to give misleading impressions. Anti-Bush writers like Bob Woodward have timed their books to hit the market for maximum PR effect.
Colin Powell and other retired military officers are being trotted out to repeat their dissatisfaction that more troops were not dispatched to Iraq at the time of the invasion. These Monday-morning quarterbacks fail to acknowledge that we didn’t have enough troops to do so, because Bill Clinton had balanced the budget largely by cutting our military strength almost by half.
Before Clinton’s military cuts, the United States had a powerful enough military to sustain a two-front war around the globe, with a strategic reserve maintained in the United States. Today, to conduct a single-front war, we have to disrupt civilian life by mobilizing reserve troops.
The 1884 election campaign was as negative and dirty as today’s. Newspapers and magazines focused public attention upon allegations of character flaws, all but ignoring substantive policy issues.
Republicans charged that Democratic presidential nominee Grover Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child. Democrats alleged Republican presidential nominee James G. Blaine’s association with questionable railroad stock deals.
Tipping the balance in Cleveland’s favor was the Pat-Robertson-style remark, a week before the election, by Protestant minister Samuel Burchard, who described the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.” Democratic newspapers pounded away on this remark, associating the Republicans with the wrong sides of three of the most divisive issues of the late 1800s: prohibition, religious tolerance, and reconciliation after the Civil War.
Many analysts believed that angry Irish Catholic voters in New York City gave Grover Cleveland the margin of victory to overcome Republican strength elsewhere in the nation.
As in 1884, Democrats still rely upon big cities, today in the Northeast, Midwest, and the Left Coast, where atheistic socialism is the dominant religion.
In 1884, enough mugwump Republicans were sufficiently distressed with Blaine’s alleged dealings to bolt the part and support Grover Cleveland. Today, the conservative wing of the Republican Party threaten to abandon Republican candidates, because of Congress’s pork-barreling and failure to act decisively against illegal immigration.
Today growing numbers of Roman Catholics, disgusted with the hedonistic irreligion of Democrats’ liberal leaders, are shifting from their long alignment with the Democratic party.
In 1884, the United States was becoming the greatest industrial nation on earth. Today, after three-quarters of a century of welfare-state inflation and high production costs that started with the Democrats’ New Deal, we are becoming less competitive and losing manufacturing jobs to overseas producers.
The real issue of the our political campaigns is whether we are to descend further into the depravity of atheistic and materialistic socialism, which is the essence of the Democratic Party.
Visit MoveOff Network Members
Back to summary...
