There was a time when the Republicans could be counted on as being conservative as defined by conservatives. Was it just a few years ago in such years is 2010 and 2014? Do we have to go back to 1980 and continue to reminisce about Ronald Reagan?
Early in 2009 after the swearing-in of President Barack Obama, the Republicans started a movement resisting the increase of revenue enhancements in which they called it "taxed enough already" and the tea party was born. After one election cycle, the Republicans had made some gains. Lately, believing you are taxed enough already will now make you fringe. And that should make you cringe.
The tea party movement in the last elections were being drummed out of the party as a bunch of extremist nuts. But they were elected to repeal Obama care. They didn't! They were elected to stand up to President Obama's unlawful amnesty plan. They won't! They were elected to stand up for the moral principle of this country and reversed the entitlement mentality that the Democrats continuously promote. They don't.
For many months, even years, the Democrats have been laughing at the long, strong line up of Republican presidential candidates. There are so many that are so qualified that support was very spread out. If you got 10%, you were a front runner. If you get 15%, you're the target for the left-wing media. If you get the 17%, Hillary started getting worried.
The Democrats had it also helped. They had it locked up. We were prepared for their coronation. They said they wanted a contest, but they really wanted to coordinate Hillary. And now that coordinating Hillary is becoming a problem, the Democrats are secretly worried that we will not have a qualified candidate for the presidential race. Not again.
Even the mainstream and left-wing media are starting to pay attention to the scandal that has been brewing about calories e-mail server. The lies are no longer holding up. Democrats across America are getting worried. Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz is social cup she cannot tell the difference between socialists and Democrats. So this year, they're one and the same. Is this why, Bernie Sanders seems a plausible alternative? Not too sane America.
Because the Democratic bench is so weak they have no alternatives. It's Hillary or nothing. Bernie Sanders is too nutty to make it to the general election. He didn't enter the race with the intention of winning. He's 73 years old. How can he be the future of America? Joe Biden is almost in the same boat. He's had the reputation of being crazy old Joe for his entire tenure as vice president. Even Barack Obama called them that. Now he's another septuagenarian that were supposed to entrust our future and children too?
Now the Democrats are trying to bandy about the name Al Gore. Another loser from the past. The Democrats think the American populist is stupid enough to believe that global warming is the worst problem you will ever face. Worse than the economy, worse than aces, worse than Obama care.
Have a thought about Mike Dukakis? He's still alive. The constitution would still allow Jimmy Carter to get a second term. But he would have to choose a qualified vice presidential candidate areas now we're back to that problem of no qualified candidates. It seems like anybody under 65 in the Democratic Party has no qualifications to be the next president. The children are surely in trouble.
The Democrats were traditionally the party of the youth. They had young people with new ideas which were universally thought of as the way the world was turning. They didn't trust anybody over 30 and thought they had good reason. But what about next year?
The Democrats are now rolling out a bunch of holdovers, as has beens, and washed up candidates is the future of the party. Look at Hillary Clinton. Closing in at 70 years old, she's considered the president in waiting by the Democrat party. Sure, they say they don't want coronation, but if you look at polls and see how many are still supporting Hillary, how can it be anything but a coronation? This so-called competitive race is being used to justify their coronation and helping to convince the lemmings of the party that she is the candidate that is going to be our next president. God help us.
Only Clinton speak will explain her bigoted opinions on issues. That's if she gets to the issues. She lies about Benghazi she lies about her e-mails. She even lies about her stance on the issues as if she's been right all along and everybody else has evolved. And like any other good Democrat, she's completely intolerant of anybody who has a differing opinion no matter how miniscule. Is she going to think that the Americans are going to believe that she is going to reunite the country? She thinks Americans are so stupid that they will eventually believe all the lies she is telling us.
Then there's Bernie Sanders. He's even older than Clinton. Yet he strikes a chord with you with because who wouldn't want free stuff? As a college student, I would've loved to of had somebody paid for all my schooling. I would've hopped on the bandwagon for free college if it had existed at that time. How about higher wages? There's not a soul in the working world today that would not love to have their wages doubled for doing the sexy thing they're doing today. But that darn free market will not bring it on itself. So if we get the government involved, that will make everybody in America happy, right?
How about Russ Feingold? In his day, he was one of the most liberal senators in the U.S. Senate. Even though he was wrong on most of the issues that he thought he was right on, he still got voted out in a Republican watershed year. Are the people of this state stupid enough to bring him back? Some are.
Yes, the party of use is rolling out nothing but old has-beens for the future. I can't figure it out.
You know this is a bad deal when the reason that politicians are giving for supporting it is based on extortion. How many politicians have we heard whining, "I don't want the bugs to leave. We have to pass this deal, the Bradley Center already has debt. I'm so sad."