As an eternal optimist (as good conservatives are), I’m resolved not to wallow in despair over John McCain’s looming nomination as the Republican presidential candidate. The fact that he secured the nomination, in large part, by wooing independents and liberals to cross over in the primaries and vote for him; it’s in the past, I’m over it.There is no conservative in the race. John McCain is not one, and I say that based on pure common sense. Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials were challenged based on a few of the positions that he espoused during his stint as governor of Massachusetts, but the keen political observer ought to understand that the leadership he exhibited there – over a very liberal constituency – exemplifies the left-most sympathies of which he is capable. In other words, as governor of Massachusetts, we’ve seen Romney at his worst.
Inversely, John McCain is the senior senator of Arizona, a reliably red state. So for as long as we’ve been observing McCain’s US Senate career, we’ve seen him at his BEST… which still includes almost switching parties in 2004 to run as John Kerry’s VP.
So, John McCain is out. And since Barack Obama’s strongest demonstrated conviction to date is his loyalty to an angry black nationalist minister, I am left with the distasteful option of voting for Hillary Clinton in November. Hey: better to have ruinous Democrat policies implemented by a president with a (D) after her name than by a pandering media-whore “moderate” who didn’t earn his (R).
I’m not positive I’ll be able to stomach it; I may wimp out and write in Romney’s name on the ballot. But I’ve evaluated the situation and I have my plan. So, with that accomplished, it’s time to get back to the business of optimism.
If you’ve been watching the presidential campaign recently, dear reader, you know why I’m in such a good mood. There’s been almost no media focus recently on the sad state of Republican presidential candidate affairs. Rather, the lion’s share of the coverage has been dedicated to the bitter, bloody infighting among Democrats….
And it’s delicious!
Barack Obama’s preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made headlines for about a week. Obama’s refusal to disown his pulpit-mounted purveyor of anti-American racial victimology gospel put a nice big crack in his “post-racial” image, and by extension, tarnished the shiny promise of racial-guilt absolution that a vote for Obama subliminally offered to his self-loathing white supporters.
And Hillary Clinton, who seems to have fallen out of favor with the press (Is it any surprise to find out that American journalists suffer from a raging epidemic of white guilt?) is finding herself subjected to the kind of anal exam usually reserved for Republicans. Imagine what a shock it was for her to have the press actually fact-check her story on Bosnia! She’s only one set of fake memos away from finding out what it’s like to sit on the other side of the aisle.
Obviously, I’d like to see this ugliness continue for as long as possible. The longer the Democrat nomination contest stays neck-and-neck, the better.
This is hardly a unique sentiment. With the Republican nomination essentially decided, right-wing talk radio has been broadly encouraging its listeners to cross over and vote in the Democrat primaries. Usually for Hillary, since Obama is leading in pledged delegates.
And they’ve been doing it. States with recent and upcoming primaries, like Ohio and Indiana and Pennsylvania, have experienced record levels of new Democrat registrations. Callers to the Rush Limbaugh program gleefully announce their readiness and intent to cast their primary ballots for Clinton.
It must sting Democrats to know that people with no interest in their party’s well-being are playing an active role in picking their presidential nominee. Worse, in a close contest among actual Democrats, the conservative carpetbaggers are elevated to the powerful position of tie-breakers.
To quote Dave Chappelle’s Samuel Jackson character, “HOW’S IT TASTE, MOTHERFUCKER???????”
Needless to say, Democrat power men are scrambling to thwart the right’s giddy turnabout subversion of their primary process. The Democrat party of Ohio actually went so far as require that new Democrat registrants SIGN SOVIET-STYLE LOYALTY OATHS to the principles of the Democrat party before registering.
Hilariously absurd, both in terms of its ineffectiveness (Hillary won Ohio) and in its presupposition that the Democratic party actually has any principles to start with.
Even more amusing, Indiana Democrat Party Chairman Dan Parker announced a plan last week to combat crossover voters “with malicious intent.”
According to the Northwest Indiana Times, the plan works like this: Voters declare party affiliation in the spring primaries. Party officials stationed at the polling places can then check those voters against lists of past party declarations. Party officials can then CHALLENGE the voter’s party affiliation, at which point the voter can choose either to abstain from voting in the party’s primary, or the voter can sign an affidavit swearing that, in the last election, he voted mostly for the party’s regular nominated candidates.
This is so beautiful. Stalin, anyone?
PARTY OFFICIALS will be at the polling places to sniff out mischievous Republicans.
PROFILING! God, I wonder what they’ll be looking for. A clear-headed, sober expression? Good hygiene, perhaps? Evidence of employment?
Mischievous Indiana Republicans, take note: Go to your polling place on May 6th wearing a “Fuck Bush” T-shirt and some patchouli oil. Don’t wash your hair. Arrive between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. Scowl incessantly. Screw up your ballot and request as many replacements as state law allows.
That oughta fool ‘em!
Let’s take a little trip down memory lane.
On October 20th, 2006, the Orange County offices and home of Tan Nguyen, Republican Candidate for California’s 47th Congressional District, were raided by the California Department of Justice. CalDOJ seized computers and documents as evidence to build a case that Nguyen had participated in a scheme to intimidate voters.
The case centered around a letter that had been mailed to recently-registered voters. Mailed primarily to houses with Latino surnames, it stated, in Spanish:
You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting. You are advised that, for those in this country illegally or those with green cards, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in imprisonment, and you will be deported for voting without having the right to do so.
(Several months later, CalDOJ found that there was no evidence to indicate
that Nguyen’s campaign intended to intimidate those legally entitled to vote.
The controversy at the time of the letter’s publication stemmed from the
English-to-Spanish translation of “those with green cards” to the word
“emigrado”, which idiomatically means “immigrants with work permits”, but was
simply translated back into the word “immigrant” in the copy of the letter cited
in press reports.)
SO… judging by history, the left feels that
“disenfranchisement” is such a touchy issue that warning illegal immigrants not
to vote constitutes intimidation so severe as to require a Justice
investigation. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrat brownshirts
in Indiana will be on hand at the polls to challenge your “allegiance to the
party” and keep you from voting.
Just something to consider.
0 comments:
Post a Comment