While it’s those of us the right who are usually in
the position of having to choose between the lesser of two, or more, evils,
this time around it may be those on the left who may be forced into just such a
situation. Such a dilemma has as its
source the myth among many on the left that decades of experience has made
Hitlery the most pragmatic choice, and therefore the odds on favorite, for
president in 2016. But like most fairy
tales, it conveniently glosses over the heroine's many, and very obvious,
flaws. For instance, there is her
31,000-plus missing emails (the subject of a lawsuit by the Associated Press),
questions about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and direct donations
to Hitlery from big banks, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
And it’s because of such flaws that there now seems
to be a growing amount of talk about there being a rather obvious alternative
to the old girl. That rather than to rely
on someone who can't seem to elude perpetual media scrutiny, the person now
being heralded as being the one that more Democrats should pay closer attention
to is none other than Marty O'Malley, former governor of the People’s Republic
of Maryland. Marty, who, is said to be
poised to officially join the race later this Saturday. The former Baltimore
mayor and two-term governor is said to offers genuine alternative to the status
quo within Washington and is said to be a real threat to any GOP challenger. But would we really elect the guy who dreamt
up a tax on rain? What else might he
want to tax, perhaps the air we breathe?
But I digress.
It’s said by those who support Marty that, unlike
Hitlery, he isn't linked to perpetual scandal and criticism, nor is he beholden
to foreign donors, investment banks or a family surname. He has stated, and rightfully so I suppose,
that the presidency isn't "some crown to be passed between two
families" and compared to Hitlery, Marty is said to offer what is a genuinely
‘progressive’ outlook on American politics. As if that progressivism has been shown
to be a good thing for America. When
both candidates are analyzed, it's apparent that one caters to poll-driven
centrism while the other is far more confident in a ‘progressive’ vision for
America. That would be, I guess, the
same vision he inflicted upon Maryland which resulted in the governor’s mansion
going Republican for the first time since the 60’s.
Another supposed selling point for Marty that many
leftists seem to like to point out is the fact that while Hitlery voted for the
invasion of Iraq, Marty has been a longtime critic of the Iraq War. And also it was as governor that Marty
sponsored and then signed a same-sex marriage bill when Hitlery was overtly
against gay marriage. He also signed a
marijuana decriminalization bill, while Hitlery has said she was against the
decriminalization of marijuana. Marty
wants to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act (repealed during the Clinton years),
has called the Trans-Pacific Partnership a "bad trade deal," and
urged the Senate in 2014 to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Hitlery, on the other hand, once referred to
TPP as "the gold standard in trade agreements," and she still hasn't
taken a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Perhaps the biggest issue many have with Hitlery,
and one that many on the left say that Marty, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb don't
face, is a "trust deficit" felt by many of those on the left. A recent Washington Post article titled
"For Hillary Clinton, a trust deficit to surmount," highlights how
even favorable polls indicate a rather distinct lack of trust. More than six in 10 voters, or 62 percent,
seem to think that Hitlery has "strong leadership qualities." In that same sample, though, less than four in
10, or 38 percent, said she was honest and trustworthy. A majority, 54 percent,
said she is not honest and trustworthy, including 61 percent of
independents. With Marty, however,
leadership skills don't translate to a majority of people questioning his honesty,
only his intelligence.
According to his supporters there on the left Marty
represents an honest, bold and capable alternative to Hitlery and a worthwhile
challenger to any GOP candidate. However,
I would argue that the making of such a claim can also be easily described as being
a fairy tale in its own right. Those on
the left say that he isn't a magnet for perpetual scandal, and he isn't
beholden to special interests or vapid centrism. These, or so it is claimed,
are competitive advantages over Hitlery would help Marty defeat any Republican
for important battleground states in 2016.
But Marty does have a record as governor, and while it is a record in
which progressives may find many positives, it is not a record that
demonstrates what many feel, after the Barry years, our country needs to get
back on the right track.
And as has always been the case, but especially regarding
those Democrat candidates running for president, what must be determined before
taking anyone under possible consideration is the level of patriotism and love
of country that the candidate possesses. Now we know, and with some level of
certainty, that Hitlery, like Barry, has a very low opinion of this country,
and I have heard nothing from Marty that would indicate to me that his
sentiment is any different than the other two.
Democrats have a long, and very proud, history of hating their country,
and have consistently demonstrated that they have absolutely no love for any of
those institutions that made this country great. And they certainly have no love for our Constitution. For the rest of us there is no lesser evil
where Democrats are involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment