We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions



 

What Do These Democrats Stand For, Anyway?
by Andy Obermann
04 February 2004Al Sharpton

We must have a serious understanding of who these men are and what they represent.


We are all pretty much aware of the Democratic presidential hopeful’s conflicting stances on our liberation of Iraq.  We know that Senators Kerry and Edwards are hypocrites, Dr. Dean is an appeaser, Gen. Clark isn’t sure what he supports, and Dennis Kucinich is just a screwball.  There is only one candidate with a respectable position on the issue -- Senator Joe Lieberman -- and he is in fifth place.  I realize by the time you read this, several of these candidates may not be candidates anymore, but let’s take a look at some of the domestic policies they might bring to the table in November, anyway.

As much as I respect and admire General Clark’s military service, he is just not presidential material.  His positions on issues, both foreign and domestic, are not only contradictory, but strengthen his neophyte image.  For example, when asked by Joseph McQuaid (a Manchester, MA Union Leader) about his position on abortion, Clark commented that the law has no place whatsoever in the practice of abortion:

Clark:  I don’t think you should get the law involved in abortion.
McQuaid:  At all?
Clark:  Nope.
McQuaid:  Anything up to delivery?
Clark:  Nope.  Nope.
McQuaid:  Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark:  I say it’s up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience…you don’t put the law there.

Of course, Clark has since retracted his statements, but this exchange clearly demonstrates the General’s lack of thought on the serious issues of today and amateur political presence.  Had he done so, he would have realized that if the head were out of the womb, the practice would be considered murder, not abortion (even though they are practically one and the same).  Perhaps General Clark just wants to save the woman the invasiveness of abortion.  Just deliver the baby and…well, you get the idea.

Howard Dean has seemingly made a living making silly remarks and outrageous claims.  Like this one on September 25, 2003, after being asked what he felt would be the most unpopular move he might make as president, Dean replied, “As governor…I had to balance the budget during very difficult times.  We have to balance the budget.”  Interesting, a liberal Democrat, raving about balancing budgets.  The problem is “President” Dean’s plans would only expand deficits to new, record levels.  A study, conducted by the National Taxpayers Union, found that under Dean, the budget deficit would increase by a sum of $223 billion, after a full repeal of President Bush’s tax cut package.  Among his spending plans is a “five to one match” for campaign contributions, a $30 billion contribution toward combating the spread of AIDS, same sex benefits for federal employees and a $100 billion “job creation" scheme.  Typical for a tax and spend Democrat, but perhaps he should leave balancing budgets to the real conservatives.

Next up, John Edwards.  According to Senator Edwards, private school vouchers are dastardly because they promote “two school systems—one for the affluent and one for everyone else.”  Let’s grant Mr. Edwards that this dichotomy in education does actually exist.  Obviously, increased funding to public education over the past few decades hasn’t done the trick, so maybe incorporating something different will.  You know what will make public education more effective?  Competition.  By breaking the monopoly of government schools, forcing competition with private schools for funding, public schools will have some incentive for improvement.  So, in the mean time, since there are two school systems for our youth, why not allow “everyone else” the opportunity to join the “affluent” in private schools via government funded vouchers?  It just makes sense.

It’s hard to attack Joe Lieberman, because by today’s standards, he is practically a Republican.  The only difference is he wants to raise taxes and increase spending…well, I guess just raise taxes.  President Bush and Congressional Republicans are doing a bang-up job increasing spending on their own.

Senator John Kerry is another interesting one.  Kerry seems to support opening our borders to any and all that wish to enter.  “Anyone who has been in this country for five or six years…who has stayed out of trouble, ought to be able to [receive] American citizenship immediately.”  Oh really?  We should award illegal behavior with the gift of permanent and binding US citizenship?  Even better, let’s wait until they have been here a few years before we do it, you know, so they are entrenched in our society.  Hopefully they’ll even have a couple of kids, too.  That sounds great.  We’ll give them all Medicare and Food Stamps and Welfare to make sure they’ll vote for Democrats.  That’s the ticket.  Utterly ridiculous!

Speaking of ridiculous, let’s take this time to briefly talk about the other two candidates.

Dennis Kucinich…what can I say.  On his official campaign website, Kucinich is proposing to create a new department in our government.  To go along side the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security, ol’ Dennis is proposing, get this, the Department of Peace and Tranquility.  Through the new cabinet-level department, Kucinich hopes to, “…make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives.”  Enough said.

Finally we come to that old “race warlord” himself, Al Sharpton.  When asked how his social activism would unite the country, Sharpton replied, “…my history of activism makes it easier for me than most.  I am fighting for equal opportunity and protection under the law.”  I guess his “fight” doesn’t apply to Jews who own businesses in Harlem.  In 1995, Rev. Al led a protest against the store “Freddy’s” in Harlem.  The storeowner, Freddy Harari, was forced to raise rent on a tenant, Sikhulu Shange—a black storeowner leasing from Harari.  Harari’s rent had previously been raised—forcing him to take such action.  The angry mob, led by Sharpton, targeted the Jewish Harari as a racist.  Eventually they burst into the store, murdered four employees, and lit the place on fire, killing eight in total.  So much for “equal protection under the law.” 

Here’s the point; we must have a serious understanding of who these men are and what they represent.  The damage they could do to the country, if elected, is unimaginable.

Andy Obermann is majoring in History and Secondary Education at Missouri Valley College
.

Email Andy Obermann

Send this Article to a Friend