Does anyone but me find it more than passingly strange that for Democrats to succeed politically, there has to be a disaster of some sort for Americans or America?   I suppose that explains why they root for a disaster in Iraq, pray for an economic downturn and hope against hope for some sort of natural disaster--like Katrina or Ike--that they can, unaccountably, blame on Republicans.  It may also explain why Democrats are eaten up with doom and gloom over the phony premise of "Anthropogenic Global Warming," the non-existent "Hole in the Ozone Layer," "Northeastern Lake Acidification" and other "The Sky is Falling" scares.

 

The current economic crises have them salivating like Pavlov's dogs over the prospect of voter dissatisfaction sweeping the worst radical leftist in our history into the White House.  I have my doubts that this will occur--mostly because it's inconceivable to me that Americans are dumb enough to elect a complete non-entity to the Presidency with close ties to the worst radical elements of our society.  If we do this idiotic thing, we're destined for at least four more years of more homosex in White House offices, people showing up for work in Birkenstocks and cut-offs and millions in illegal money flowing into the pockets of Obama and friends in hopes of buying influence and access--just like we got with the Clintons except doubled and re-doubled.

 

Clinton was elected primarily on the basis of convincing voters that we were in (or approaching) very difficult economic times.  In fact, the recovery from the mini-recession was already underway by the time the election rolled around in 1992.  The Clintons were quick to take credit for the recovery--doing so, even before taking office but followiing the election, claiming that "hope" for the future was what was fueling it.  Conditions improved slightly until the Democrats passed that massive tax increase in 1993, at which time the economy stagnated.   When the GOP took control of the nation's purse strings for the first time in 40 years in 1995 and passed almost all of the "contract with America," things started to improve immensely--credit for which was usurped by the Clintons yet again--ensuring their reelection in 1996.  It was during this period that Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary came up with the idiotic idea that, to insure keeping a Democrat in the White House, they needed to give something to poor and minority voters and put some of his cabinet members in control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Congress instituted a policy of demanding home loans and other forms of credit to the poor, who were decidedly unable to pay for them.  Of course, greedy bankers were all too happy to do this because they'd been assured by Fannie Mae that their "risk" would be covered by the U.S. Government.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae thereafter bought billions of dollars in such loans many of which are now in default and driving the current failure of so many mortgage lenders.

 

The point of this brief history is to yet again illustrate how, to succeed politically, Democrats MUST have a crisis of some sort going on in this country--either by natural disaster, economically or internationally.  Something which they can "blame" on Republicans.  Republicans, of course, are not with entirely clean hands in this current situation, but, in comparison, they are as clean as a newly scrubbed newborn baby.

 

Reliance on economic, foreign policy or natural disasters means that Democrats must spend much of their time ENCOURAGING such disasters--or, in the case of natural disasters, hoping for one they can exploit.  The disaster following Katrina was entirely and completely the fault of a Democrat Mayor and a Democrat Governor in Louisiana, but, with the help of a compliant "news" media, they were able to deflect their own culpability and place the blame on FEMA and the Bush Administration.  Worse yet, many Americans actually believed that nonsense.  That's what has me the most fearful for the coming election--that there are many uninformed and actually oblivious voters who're going to cast their votes for whom the media tell them is best qualified.   If one believes that associating with ACORN in "community organizing," an organization that's had dozens of his minions arrested and charged with voter registration fraud, or with an unrepentant domestic terrorist like Ayers, or sitting for a few years in the Illinois Senate and 143 days in the U.S. Senate without sponsoring a single, significant piece of legislation, qualifies one to be President, then he'll probably be elected.  

 

It's no small matter of wonder to my why no one in the media is investigating Obama's years at Columbia and Harvard, demanding his Senior thesis or his non-existent "record" as editor of the Harvard Law Review--which bears not a single article written by him during that time.  The only explanation MUST be that the national media simply doesn't CARE WHAT he's done, with whom he associates or that he's singularly UNqualified to be President. All they care about is that he's black, enjoys unbridled popularity among the leftists in our society and that he would represent atonement for the guilt the left feels about past slavery. Sorry, but that's simply NOT reason to insconce him in the White House. One can only hope that America wakes up before November 4th.