Thursday, November 1, 2007

Why the Democrats are (Sore) Losers

I put the parenthetical in because they (the party's representatives, that is, not in general the voters) are sore losers, but more to the point, they are in general losers. They can't figure out what it is they're trying to do, and as one of those bleeding-heart liberal gun nuts it kind of irritates me.

So the Dems for all intents and purposes swept the 2006 "mid-term" elections. They did so on the promise of stopping the war in Iraq, which largely is something that the population of the United States wanted. And here we are, a year later, and what's happened? Nothing. I'm getting a little off track, but what do you call someone who consistently doesn't do their duty? Especially an elected official who makes a pledge and then does nothing? Yeah, that's the game, nobody actually expects elected officials to do what they say; that'd be so last-century. They're still losers.

Yesterday I read this great news that Nader is suing the Democrats. What I find particularly hilarious are the comments. Nader cost the Democrats the elections in 2000 and 2004, indeed. Nader is therefore to blame for the lives lost in Iraq. Indeed. So Nader is responsible for this, and not all of the 200+ losers that are our elected representatives in Washington? Nader is responsible, but Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom actually voted to go to war are free of blame?

What cost the Dems the 2000 and 2004 elections was the fact that they didn't put forth candidates that resonated with the population. If they could put forward a candidate that was worth a dam maybe they'd get some of the voters who don't see the point of choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. So yeah, the Democrats are the big losers here, because they actually lost to Bush, but say they lost because of Nader? Bush got like ten thousand times the number of votes that Nader did. Blame him!

Ahh well, maybe they're content being losers. After all, it does somewhat guarantee that they won't have to actually make any decisions of their own, for which they'd subsequently be held accountable. It saddens me a little bit that the slate of Democrat contenders (at least, the ones that the press seem to care about, doing their bit for skewing public perception) for President are a bunch of nothings yet again, and it's amusing to me that the Republicans have a bunch of nothings in the press as well. There seem to be interesting candidates in the running, but the parties will never let those candidates win because that would ultimately upset their agendas. That, my dear friends, is what saddens me the most about our current political climate.

No comments: