A new symbol for the Democratic Party
By pilgrim Posted in Liberals — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I was born during the Truman presidency, and I have seen both Republican and Democratic administrations at the White House. The current Democratic Party symbol of the donkey just simply does not match the spirit of today's party. The donkey is a beast of burden, and a reliable support for getting work done. This stubborn spirit was seen best in the words of President John F. Kennedy:
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "
That kind of spirit is not around nowadays in the Democratic Party. They don't care about liberty. They only care about getting power by getting elected. They put their finger to the wind, closely watch the polling numbers, and choose their actions accordingly.
Victor Davis Hanson writes an article describing this behavior. An excerpt:
"When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.
But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.
So why not come clean about their changes of heart?
Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.
Bob Novak has written another article as an example of this behavior with respect to support of a friend of the United States in the 'war on drugs'. An excerpt:
"Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.
Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.
In the wake of Uribe's visit, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.
Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man."
Another example of today's Democratic party departure from that clarion call to 'assure the survival and the success of liberty' is an article by Daniel Pipes titled 'A million moderated Muslims on the march' . He reports good news of protest marches in Turkey and Pakistan by moderate Muslims. The Democratic party of Clinton do not want to hear this stuff. They think that the existence of moderate Muslims is a myth. The Clinton administration went out of its way to bring Islamist extremists into power in the Balkans. The Iranians are Bill Clinton's 'guys'.
Really though, the idea of this new symbol came to me from reading an article by Mohammed Fadhil of the 'Iraq the Model' website. Maybe somebody can explain to me the errors in my thinking. Until then I believe the new symbol best represents today's Democratic Party.
I was worried it was an animal that would be too sympathetic for them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
but find There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war... perplexing.
If I was a member of Congress, my first consideration before the October 2002 vote would be the likelihood of things going badly if we were to invade Iraq. Next, I would consider the American people and whether or not they could stomach a protracted war.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that things go badly in wars AND it is not hard to imagine an impatient, frustrated American citizenry when there is not a quick solution. There is nothing earthshattering or brilliant about this line of thought!
It does not take genius to see that our Congressmen and Senators voted for expediency prior to the November 2002 elections.
They are a disgrace to the wonderful soldiers and the surviving families who have given their all.
I think the point he tried to make in his article is that the Democrats are dishonest jellyfish the way they are acting. I don't think he approves of people changing their minds on the war, but he is disgusted how they whine about how the 'neocons made me vote for it.' It's kind of like comparing John Murtha with Hillary Clinton. To me they are both disgusting, but it is for different reasons in each case.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Andrew Jackson that he personally liked because the donkey was a beast of the common people. Now the postmodern nihilist agenda of the Dems deserves the ostrich or perhaps a jackal instead of the jackass.
_______________________
THE DEMOCRAT'S MANIFESTO 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by lack of Federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the school system that can't teach a fourth grader how to read is some how the best qualified to teach those same children all about sex. 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs. 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that business creates oppression and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe that the U.S. Military, not evil and tyrannical regimes, start wars. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I remember reading skads of intelligence saying that either Sadaam had nukes or was likely to have them soon.
That's a good reason for airstrikes, for surgical removal of strategic capabilities.
...
It's still not a good reason to have boots on the ground.
I wish to hell we could actually have a -real- debate -- about the philosophical underpinnings of the Iraq War. I believe that evidence supports the underlying philosophy of "zero-sum" game (or possibly negative sum) in the near future.
I don't give a flying pig about the propaganda about liberty.
That's all it is, and all it ever will be. I expect America to stand up for itself, not liberty. Elsewise, why refuse to work with democratic Iran?
Sen Rockefeller and his enablers made sure that the Syrians and Iraq had all the time they needed to get the WMDs out of Iraq and in safe keeping in Syria.
The CIA and all our intelligence agencies were/are disabled by leftist spending cuts and bureaucratic infighting. Every single dollar the left could cut from our military makes it that much harder for our troops to have the equipment and support they need today.
The debate on whether we should go in must end the day the boots hit the ground; every word/every action by our nation since that
day should have been geared to America winning. Instead we have the US military and one part of America trying to win for our side and the Democrat Party leaders and American leftist terrorist supporters trying to win it for the terrorists.
I can not imagine being an American and not standing up for liberty. I can not imagine asking why we refuse to work with a Country who's leaders have sworn to destroy our allies and us.
He isn't interested in the 22 other reasons the bipartisan vote in Congress was made for authorizing CINC war powers. His head is firmly in the sand, and only pops up briefly to spout off about no nuclear WMDs before reburying it.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
It's a well-known and researched fact that the Democrats always circle the wagons on one point of non-fact to use constantly to attack the Republicans. Why worry about facts? They can just ignore them and push on. You must remember the old communist adage about telling a lie so big and for so long, that ultimately people start believing it?
Alfred Einstein once said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." And despite his fantastic scientific work, Einstein was a vocal Pacifist and Liberal. The current crop of Democrats and Liberals certainly live up to that concept. It was nicely prescient.
But, when you delve into the myriad of facts about the last six years---and despite a few blips---I think you'll find that the Bush Presidency hasn't been as bad as advertised, and certainly not evil so as to draw the viscious and deep-seated hate from Liberals and Democrats. Considering what these two/one group[s] have put the Administration through, I'm surprised Bush is still standing. Most men would be blithering idiots---you know, like Democrats.
And it's too bad that the Republicans---including the President---don't seem to have the backbone and will to stand up to the Democrats. All they do is blubber around without any real force or action to show Americans the truth.
Perhaps an ostrich is still the wrong symbol. Maybe a red devil with horns, pointed tail, and a pitchfork would suffice. We could use Ted's leer as a facial feature; Harry's crooked, pointed finger; Hillary's shrill voice; and Nancy's wrinkled smile. This may sound villainous to some, but the Democrats do act that way on more than enough occasions.
We have some work to do folks:
http://www.neatorama.com/images/2006-11/elephant-donkey-butt.gif
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson