Thursday, May 14, 2009

Why Would Anyone Ever Vote for a Democrat? (Just Asking.)

Today brings fresh evidence of one more reason why I have trouble acknowledging, or being patient with, the left-wing mindset. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claims that the CIA was "misleading" her and Congress when it briefed Congressional leaders on its interrogation techniques, especially with regard to waterboarding. She claims thought she was being told that such a technique was only a theoretical possibility, and not that it was already in widespread (and effective) use. In what can only be seen as a desperate move to retain a veneer of credibility, she called on the CIA to release the specifics of a briefing she was given on the topic in September 2002. (She of course is incapable of comprehending it, but she lost her credibility long ago---with those few who actually care about such things. Whether she continues to lie or not does not matter, because she will get a pass from the media no matter what the facts are.)

I do not know at this point whether the CIA can release the notes in question without the specific approval of the president, but Nancy Pelosi does. And so there are two possibilities: either she knows there is no chance of the notes being released, because of their classified nature, or else she does not expect President Obama to authorize their release, because of the damage they might reflect back on him, as being in the same party with her. (The third possibility---that the notes will show the CIA specifically lied to the then senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Minority Whip [about to be elected Minority Leader] to boot, about something it had been doing all along [83 times to one Al Qaeda detainee in August 2002 alone] and had briefed others on---is so remote as to be negligible.)

So why can Speaker Pelosi not accept responsibility for what she learned in 2002? What is it about the left's mindset that makes them constitutionally incapable of ever accepting any responsibility for something that might make them (at least in their eyes) look bad?

Editorial writer Maureen Dowd provides another sterling example for my point. She authored a column this week in which she says (warning: bilious drivel follows, with [probably unnecessary] emphasis added):

Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans — are not only fixed, they’re jejune.

He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable.
All right, so we have Nancy Pelosi saying that she is not responsible, the CIA misled her and the rest of Congress, and Maureen Dowd saying that it's all that medieval-minded Dick Cheney's fault. But just who is in charge now? Last I looked, we had a Democratic party majority in both the House and the Senate (where its majority is now filibuster-proof, thanks to the peristrophic Arlen Specter), and a Democratic president.

So let me get this straight: there is an expectation that we will have another terrorist attack on our soil, and that it will happen during Obama's term, because---those darn terrorists, don't you know!---are "on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable." And because they will strike somewhere in America in the next three years, it cannot be because of anything we are doing (or not doing) now; it must be the fault of those who left office with the last administration. (And never mind that no attack ever again happened on their watch from 2001 until 2009; those terrorists are just not on any "red/blue" political schedule, remember?)

Now just ponder the logical implications of this position for a moment. Do you see what it implies? Let me spell out the hidden syllogism for you:

A. When the Democrats are not in power, what happens is all the Republicans' fault.
B. When the Democrats are in power, it is still all the Republicans' fault.

Now, from this beginning, those on the left would like to draw this conclusion:

C. Therefore, whatever happens, and whenever it happens, it is all the Republicans' fault.

What their petty little minds fail to realize, however, is that this is the only really logical conclusion to follow from the given premises:

C. Why would anyone ever put the Democrats in power, since they can never affect anything for the better, and cannot prevent anything from getting worse?

In other words, all the heat and venom being spilled over former president Bush, former vice president Cheney and the so-called torture of waterboarding just goes to point up that the Democrats themselves are admitting that they are irrelevant.

If you want still more evidence, look at President Obama's claim, made after 100 days in office, that he is not responsible for the deficit, because he inherited it from President Bush. Next, check this link to see the overwhelming number of people that do not expect him to change his mind and start accepting responsibility. Finally, look back at this graph I posted on March 1---or better yet, look at this updated version to see the deficits for which the President unquestionably will be responsible, from 2009 forward, if the Democratic Congress continues to give him all that he asks:

President Obama's own projections show that the deficits expected under his leadership will dwarf by many times all previous deficits combined since the beginning of this country. And yet, it is becoming more and more evident with each passing month that his first projections fall woefully short of reality---after just three months, the negative numbers had to be revised to show still more red ink than initially forecast. And yet Obama claims, "It's not my fault"! So once again, by the man's own admission, he is irrelevant to the outcome of the current bad economic situation: nothing he does will make any difference, because those darn Republicans set him up---can't you see?

It is just too bad that America for the most part today elects its politicians for their irrelevancy --- meaning: not based on how much they really expect them to accomplish, but based mainly on what they fear will happen if the other side wins. It is almost as though Americans were more afraid of having someone in office who might actually (a) accept responsibility for what happens on their watch, and (b) make a difference in how things turn out---whether for better or for worse.

Mind you, I am not arguing in favor of electing any Republicans just now; not until they realize why they were voted out, and mend their ways, instead of trying to keep the gravy train running for themselves and their hangers-on. (While the right side of the above graph is absolutely shameful, the left side---particularly when the Republicans controlled Congress in 2003-2005 --- is nothing to crow about, either.)

I am just asking: why would anyone ever vote for a Democrat?----since (a) nothing is ever their fault, and (b) they are powerless to prevent anything bad from happening, anyway.

Thank you for enlightening us, Ms. Pelosi. (And here's to you, too, Ms. Dowd!)


  1. "Why Would Anyone Ever Vote for a Democrat? (Just Asking.)"

    I don't. I actually don't even understand how a genuine follower and disciple of Christ can vote Democrat when the Democrat Party strongly supports abortion and gay marriage.

  2. Mr. Haley

    Check out the latest in the Calvary suit. See BabyBlue Online's most recent posting

  3. Dear Mr. Haley,

    I cannot imagine voting for a Democrat, although it is almost as difficult for me to imagine voting for a Republican (and yes, I do exercise my frandhise at every opportunity). Ergo, my response to your question is probably not particularly relevant. However, I would like to point out a logical consequence of the rational answer to your question and the relevance of what Truth Unites...and Divides has written, particularly about the Democrats' virtually unanimous support for an unlimited abortion license.

    If Mrs. Pelosi is upset about being lied to, then there is another person to whom she ought address some critical comments. Based solely on her public statements relating specifically to abortion, and contrasting them with her claims to be a faithful Catholic, it is clear not only that she has been lied to about what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject of abortion, but also the person who has been doing the lying.

    What is patently obvious, is that she needs to have a serious heart-to-heart discussion with that prevaricator, whom she sees daily. The person who has been lying to her is the very same woman whom she sees every morning, standing opposite her when she puts on her makeup. When she has demonstrated some level of intellectual and moral honesty by putting that particular liar "in her place," I will consider Mrs. Pelosi a person whose dignity is worthy of respect at some fundamental level. But not likely before that has happened!Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  4. Father Wilson, thank you---I have downloaded ECUSA's complaint and am examining it closely. (This blog, I am afraid, does not cater to "instant news analysis".) I will have a post on it this weekend, or early next week.

  5. TU&D, I wholly agree with you. This post, however, was not geared to those who are particularly religious, but to those who see the Democrats on political grounds as offering "hope and change". Having promised that, the Democrats are now admitting they cannot keep their promise, because everything is out of their control. So those who voted for them in the expectation that they would actually make things better are going to be sadly disappointed. Those of us who never voted for them in the first place still have to look around for a person of principle (including being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but also pro a lot more) whom we can support in the next election.

  6. "This post, however, was not geared to those who are particularly religious, but to those who see the Democrats on political grounds as offering "hope and change"."I understood that actually! It didn't escape me.

    I didn't finish off my initial comment (which is admittedly slightly off-topic) as I wanted to.

    I wanted to remark that if those self-identified, professing Christ-followers who voted for Obama... had NOT voted for Obama, then in all likelihood, Obama would not have been elected President. And I also include all the African-American Christians who voted for Obama.

    Of course, my underlying presupposition (or irenic contention) is that the Theological Liberals in the Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox faiths who voted for Obama are not really close followers of Christ. Both in action and in theological method to justify their actions.


    (It's still legal - and always God-honoring - to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the "separation of raunch and state"!)

    In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big "signs" that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide "sign" (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven't accomplished! Gays couldn't have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture - you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint - San Andreas - may soon get a big jolt out of what's going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

    [If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]