Five Quick Shots At The Democratic Soul
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (07/24/07)
1) Bush had no plan - Perhaps one of the longest lived refrains from the Democrats has been, "Bush had no plan". Technically this is not true since the plan was to win the war against Sadam and then quickly draw down the troops as Tommy Franks was arranging to do when he retired. When Bush said, "mission accomplished" all the Democrats were stone cold silent because to all the world it seemed like the Bush plan to spread democracy around the world was working magnificently. "Jon Stewart" often cited as the number one news source for Democrats said, " I may have to apologize to this guy". But, as we learned in The History Boys, "history is one ****ing thing after another". The Bush plan did work and then began to fail dramatically over time as a new reality evolved. Democrats began to pretend to themselves that they knew what the outcome would be all along, despite their sheepish silence at "mission accomplished". At this point Democrats are hysterically, continuously, and quite neurotically congratulating themselves on their perfect hindsight while accusing Bush of being a liar about what they have convinced themselves, they knew all along?
If we then fast forward to the Democratic debates we see the Democratic psychosis growing. When Hillary was pressed beyond her hippie roots about her plan for the war, beyond blaming Bush that is, she angrily shouted, "this is George Bush's war", as if to say, "hey, don't look at me for a way out of Bush's mess, just because I want to succeed him. In truth, while it is Bush's war now, it will be hers the second she is elected. The astute questioner wanted to know Hillary's plan but she had none, except to blame Bush, despite years of blaming Bush for having no plan? One day she wants to withdraw the troops now, the next she wants to begin to withdraw the troops at some point soon, the next she wants to withdraw many of them but leave most them scattered throughout the region to contain the situation. That of course is not really a plan, and in any case is probably exactly the plan Bush will pursue once the surge is finally declared a failure in September. So in the end, Hillary's plan is really Bush's plan.
But maybe Iraq is just too tough for her to come up with a plan, let alone an adequate plan? Certainly, though, since planning is so important to Democrats, she has a plan for the easier situations that might arise during her administration. For example, what would she do if
1) a genocide, after her withdrawal from Iraq, reaches 100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 Sunni Muslims?
2) Iran takes control of all the non Kurdish oil in Iraq?
3) Turkey invades Kurdistan
4) Iran learns how to make nuclear weapons?
5) Saudi Arabia decides it too needs nuclear weapons?
6) Shiite Iran/Iraq wages and wins a war against Sunni Saudi Arabia?
7) Iran nukes Israel?
8) Hamas attacks Israel from Lebanon and Israel nukes back?
9) The oil supply is cut off, income drops by 75% in the West, millions die in China and India
10) al-Qaeda launches a weaponized anthrax attack on NYC from Iraq that makes it uninhabitable for 100 years
11) Russia retakes Eastern Europe with new oil wealth as Mid-East collapses?
12) Pakistan falls to Muslim extremists; OBL elected president
13) On going genocide in Darfur
14) Hugo Chavas supports Iran/Iraq boycott of US oil market driving gasoline to $50/gal.
15) Pakistan nukes India and India nukes back
16) Pakistan gives nukes to all Muslim countries and massive support to al-Qaeda in Iraq
17) North Korea attacks South Korea
18) China attacks Taiwan
19) Egypt and Jordan fall to Shiite extremists
20) Global warming turns out to be real, and drastic action is necessary
21) After withdrawal al-Qaeda beheads 10 people a day who cooperated with America
Hilary has no stated position on any of these issues because they all might require the massive use of American military force. Contingency plans to handle any of these crises would completely alienate her base. Even thinking about them is abhorrent to her and the girlie man Democrats who don't want to be distracted by reality from their pleasant dreams about health care and education reform at home. Even the relatively simple and on going genocide in Darfur has to be ignored because it would require military assertion from which they must hide as a matter of philosophy. Death on a huge scale does not matter to Democrats more than preserving the illusion that by being gentle peaceful souls the real world will somehow pass them by.
And oddly, Hillary is pretending to be the toughest of the Democratic lot and getting away with it. That way she'll have the necessary mainstream appeal in the general election, when in reality she is just like the whole Democratic bunch, only more manipulative. This is a woman who was a very unpopular First lady who said, "I'm not a stand by your man county Western bimbo" who then instantly became presidential timber when she did exactly what she said she would not do. Then she became a leading hawk in the Democratic Party, following the DNC formula she had learned from Bill Clinton in the wake of the McGovern defeat, even assuming us that there was an obvious and significant connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. She has seen over and over that no manipulation can be figured out by dumb Democrats. To expose her charade, all the MSM has do is ask for her plan while simultaneously explaining to her that they mean "her" plan for the whole panoply of things that may follow the withdrawal from Iraq. But of course the MSM will never do that because they too prefer anger at Bush to foreign policy.
2) al-Qaeda in Iraq - It seems the Democrats think we attacked the wrong county by attacking Iraq since there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. They love to repeat this over and over and over because it makes them feel superior in some perverse way despite not knowing it before Bush attacked to discover it. To prove that they are not the cowardly America haters that Republicans think they are, they want to redouble our effort in the relatively peaceful war in Afghanistan from where the 9/11 attacks were actually launched.
But now one has to ask them: if you want to withdraw from Iraq where al-Qaeda is huge why would you want to fight harder in Afghanistan where al-Qaeda is small and geographically isolated? The only plausible explanation is that they want to help al-Qaeda grow by attacking it where it is already in remission and ignore it where it threatens to engulf the Middle East oil region. At some point we have to hope that America will realize that the Democratic obsession with blaming a lame duck President will not miraculous or spontaneously generate a new foreign policy, and may actually be preventing the nation from generating one by rational means. The Democrats want to win an election by somehow holding a lame duck President accountable while concomitantly ignoring a future which they do not have the courage to face. How smart is it to allow them in the political process at all when there are such serious issues at hand?
3) The Earth Has A Fever - The other day Al Gore struck again in the New York Times. He talked about "the fever's" potentially catastrophic consequences for starship earth but failed again to say what the fever is? If you find that your child has a fever don't you immediately ask, "how high" or "what is it?" Not Al Gore; because if he admitted that it was only 1 degree over the last hundred years, despite the dreaded carbon revolution that made life possible, for the first time ever, for billions of human beings, it would immediately cause people to wonder how significant 1 degree might really be.
And once again he cited the 10 year tipping point? But when does the 10 years finally get to be 9 or 8 or 7 years? It always seem to be 10 years away? Let's not forget that Gore was turned on to global warming in the 1960's when he was in college? And that was years before the now famous 1970's cover story in Time Magazine about the coming Ice Age. Why don't we agree that if global warming isn't significant by 2010 we'll forget about it and propose a Constitutional amendment to ban the Democrats as too hysterical, in their zeal to socialize American, to be American?
4) Elephantiasis for liberals- Let's face it, malaria is an age old disease that has always killed millions in Africa. So the other day the Times, with some resignation or defeatism, ran an editorial about elephantiasis, which is almost as serious. But unlike malaria, which costs a few dollars per person to cure, elephantiasis can be cured for mere pennies. The idea was to suggest that we in the West, if we're going to maintain the current fever pitch fad to help Africans, we ought to at least do it efficiently by treating the relatively cheap disease to see if we can't at least find some success there.
But isn't it odd that George Bush's recent $30 billion aid package hasn't helped and that the Gates/Buffet $50 billion annuity for Africa hasn't helped, and that the billions from the IMF/ World Bank hasn't somehow gotten through? People are still dying all over Africa for want of a few pennies among the billions of dollars floating around? Maybe it's because the liberal welfare mentality does not work? The liberal mind cannot comprehend that Republican values: law and order, family values, and capitalism lead to sustainable prosperity while their values lead only to continuous cycles of death. Yes, it is a sad sad truth that Democratic welfare values nurtured in American are responsible for the continuing malaria and elephantiasis deaths in Africa. In their hatred for and confusion about America Democrats are denying African what our founders gave us, and it was not Democratic welfare, it was Jeffersonian Republicanism.
5) How sick is "Sicko"- Well, it is very sick. The premise is similar to the elephantiasis premise. Some Americans can't afford health care; so let's be sweet, caring, and morally superior by giving it to them. It's a theory that a two year old and a Democrat can understand. "To each according to his needs" was the way Karl Marx put it. It has since been loosely translated into English by none other than the Hilary and the Democrats .
To avoid the emotion attached to the health care debate it is perhaps better to think about it in terms of food, clothing, and shelter since they have often been considered more important than health care. Imagine if the US gov't decided, as did the Soviet gov't, that they would pay for all shelter in American as the single payer? The price the gov't would pay would be determined by a gov't bureaucrat not 300 million Americans comparison shopping. The kinds, shapes, styles, size, and quality of shelter offered would be determined by a gov't bureaucracy instead of 300 million Americans picking what they wanted, liked, and could afford with their available resources. The number of shelters offered would be less than needed since the gov't would probably pay too little to encourage production. Or they might pay too much in which case production would be in surplus and wasted. Advances in quality would probably end since a gov't bureaucrat would have to guess at what new products to pay for (assuming anyone had the incentive to invent them) instead of letting a nationwide army of private consumers, builders, and bankers pick and chooses and nimbly adjust to the many innovative possibilities a free market produces. Yes, it is the story of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cuba but one still has to hope the Democrats will finally learn the law of supply and demand before they destroy America.
The American health care crisis does add a layer of complexity that even more thoroughly befuddles the Democratic mind in that by most estimates America spends 50-100% more than Canada, France, and England on a per capita basis to get approximately the same results. This can be explained in part because most of the innovative equipment, drugs, and personal are American which means Americans are charged more for them if only because they can afford to pay more. Other countries are charged less because they can afford less and because capitalism is naturally humanitarian. Additionally, Americans seem to incur more health related costs because they kill and injure each other a lot, abuse food, alcohol, and drugs a lot more , and take care of their unborn babies a little less. But most importantly, American health care is an expensive, inefficient socialist mess while Canada, France, and England have a relatively efficient, if such a thing is possible, socialist single payer system. In the US you have competing and conflicting socialist-like, programs. Gov't inefficiency and mismanagement in programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, and s-chip, plus heavy regulation and restriction of insurance companies and the entire industry by a maze of both the Federal and State gov'ts, plus a huge and powerful gov't union controlling the supply of doctors, make our socialism less efficient than theirs. In the end you could say we now have a creeping spaghetti like socialism that is less efficient than the comparatively efficient socialist European/Canadian systems. You could also say that are better at socialism than we are.
The solution, as the USSR and China found, and as we have continuously found in the markets for food clothing and shelter, is more Republican capitalism and less Democratic socialism. And, because the demand for health care is unlimited while the quality is ultimately so low that each one of us will die from it, it is critically important that we move rapidly and thoroughly in the Republican direction immediately. The freedom to stay alive is, after all, the most important freedom isn't it?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
