Recent developments in Campaign '04 have shown once again the extreme depths to which modern politics have sunk, and the lengths to which the far left will go to elect a candidate. The consipracy shop of the left, closed during the Clinton years when the Democrats tried to cast themselves as the party of the "centrists" and mainstream America, have since begun to churn out unfounded lies, from the infamous CBS forged memos, to Michael Moore-style conspiracies attempting to accuse Bush of going to war in Iraq on behalf of Haliburton -- a favorite "conspiracy theory" of the left, which also believes there are oil tankers secreted off the U.S. coast waiting for the cost of gas to go up further.
The fact that these people are inventing accusations to blame America's President and industry when the cause of rising gas prices is due primarily to the hostiel regimes upon which we rely for oil, the lack of willingness to cut gas taxes [which compose up to 1/3 of the cost per gallon of gasoline] and environmentalist opposition to development of alternative sources of oil, only illustrates their distance from, and liberties with, reality.
That myths of this sort would become part and parcel of the Democrat mainstream -- John Kerry brought up the Haliburton conspiracy theory in the Presidential debate -- only illustrates how the Democratic party has abandoned its posturing as "centrist" to return to its far-left base. The same can be said for a DNC "manual" on instigating false accusations of voter "intimidation", which instructs Democrats that if no actual instances of Republicans disenfranchising minorities happen, that DNC officials are to fabricate them and throw the accusations into the limelight in a "pre-emptive" assault on the integrity of the election process. That the Democrats -- who spent Election 2000 trying to count illegal votes -- are accusing the GOP of voter irregularities is utter hypocrisy and political showmanship. That they are making the accusations even though there has been no instances of "disenfranchisement", is utter dishonesty. The Dems then turn around and claim that asking voters for identification amounts to "intimidation". Who on earth would be intimidated by such measures which are obviously intended to prevent voter fraud, which is how real "disenfranchisement" occurs? Only illegal aliens, felons, or others not legally allowed to vote in the first place! The real "disenfranchisement" is when the Democrats try to water downt he real votes with fraudulent ones -- which is what they are trying to do. Massive "get-out-the-vote" campaigns often take a "don't ask" approach to prospective voter's legal status, especially if they appear likely to back the Democrats.
But accusations about the elections process are not the only places the Democrats have illustrated their lowdown tactics. The Kerry-Edwards campaign also showed its attitude when it deliberately attacked Vice President Cheney's daughter.
Cheney's daughter is gay, and Cheney has a disagreement with the Bush administration's overall approach to "gay marriage" -- although he still agrees that the President should set policy. This was raised twice by Kerry-Edwards, and made into an issue, when clearly it isn't. The Democrats were trying to steer any religious voters away from the Bush-Cheney campaign -- and at the same time energize their own leftist base by making the Cheneys appear ashamed of their daughter. As the Democratic campaign manager said, Mary Cheney is now "fair game" for attacks. It was a reaction to this, not the fact that their daughter is gay, that earned the Cheneys ire, and rightly so. The DNC must be unhinged if it thinks that attacking the opposition for having a gay daughter -- when members of that group are typically Democrats -- will add to their power base. If anything, this Kerry-Edwards tactic will offend the Democratic voters of that persuasion, and just about everyone else. Republicans will see it correctly as a cheap shot, a crass act. Potential or actual Democratic voters of that sexual orientation will likely identify more with Mary Cheney than her Democratic attackers. It is a poor tactic, politically.
Of course, what Kerry-Edwards is counting on, is convincing U.S. citizens that the Cheneys are mad because they are ashamed of their daughter. Had this been a secret one might believe that. However, Dick Cheney mentioned his daughter was gay some time ago. He did not dwell on it, but nor was it a skeleton in his closet, no pun intended. However, the Kerry Campaign would have Americans conclude that Cheney is opposed to his own daughter, because he is a member of the Bush administration which has opposed creating a special class of protections for homosexuals. The reality is that this is a free country and people should be free to do as they please. But it is also true that no one should be given special preferences before the law. How easily the Democratic left forgets this, just as it forgets basic human decency. Of course the Cheneys are mad. If someone pronounced your daughter "fair game" for sleazy political attacks, wouldn't you be angry? Wanting to shield one's family from the harsh realities of below-the-belt campaign tactics is a normal and healthy reaction. One could find fault in Dick Cheney's response if he WASN'T angry.
The strategy is likely to backfire on the Democrats, especially if enough gays -- who are usually thought of as far to the left, politically -- can see through the fog of their own single-issue mentality and examine the Democrats' tactics as they actually happened. This may not be likely but it is possible.
The irony would be that the Democrats have risked alienating a major source of their own support base -- in order to focus on what is a non-issue in this election. It is true that the growing influence of "religious right" is a concern about the Republican party. But it is also just as true that on critical issues -- from border security and illegal aliens to health care -- the GOP is co-opting the worst of the left's proposals, such as Bush's "amnesty" plan and massive welfare program for prescription drug-using senior citizens. The reasons are clear; these proposals are most-often jusified by an appeal tot he same altruist mentality that is such a part of religion. It is no surprise then, that as religon-based proposals sprout up, so are me-to versions of the left's most disastrous schemes. The movement of the Republican party away from its focus of limited government, towards using the government for forced charity and relgious purposes, is a concern, as is the GOP's pandering to illegals. But the left is no better on many such issues. Where the "religious right" wants to add unecessary amendments to the constitution to prevent the creation of special preferences for gays, the left desires the creation of such preferences. Where the religious elements in the right want to restrict science, research, and medicine -- example: stem cells -- the left wants to take medicine away from Americans and hand it over to control of the government under a socialistic "universal" system. Where the right wants the government to interfere with a person's right to abortion, the left wants us to be forced to pay for other people's abortions. And it is not only the influence of religion; the GOP is also being torn asunder by pragmatic attempts to pander to the Democrats' traditional supporters -- by adopting the worst of the democrats proposals.
Where Bush offer's a "don't call it amnesty" amnest plan for illegals, the left offers totally open borders and supports giving government services to illegal aliens. While the right fails to oppose all unjust gun control laws, the left is actively seeking stricter ones. Where the right offered paltry tax cuts that don't do nearly enough, the left wants to raise taxes yet higher. Where the right has made a half-hearted war effort to defend America, the left promises surrender to world opinion.
Ultimately, on many of these issues -- and on the big issue, the war we face -- the left is worse.
The long-term concerns about the religious rights' growing influence in the GOP takes a back seat to the more immediate concern of terrorism by the religious fanatics overseas.
This election isn't about Mary Cheney. It is about the threat of another September 11 -- and the Democratis will do anything to get elected, except deal with that threat.
Back to....
