Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Andrew Jackson vs. Liberal Democrats

The following is from the DNC:
When Andrew Jackson (a Democrat) ran for president in 1828, his opponents tried to label him a "jackass" for his populist views and his slogan, "Let the people rule." Jackson, however, picked up on their name calling and turned it to his own advantage by using the donkey on his campaign posters. During his presidency, the donkey was used to represent Jackson's stubbornness when he vetoed re-chartering the National Bank. By 1880 the donkey was well established as a mascot for the Democratic party. A cartoon about the Garfield-Hancock campaign in the New York Daily Graphic showed the Democratic candidate mounted on a donkey, leading a procession of crusaders.
I was watching a History Channel while washing dishes the other night (no cat-calls, now...), and there was a little blurb about Andrew Jackson and the Democratic mascot, the donkey. When comparing Andrew Jackson with the Left-leaning Democrat portrayed by Mike over at America Under Attack posted When the Left Left America Behind, it is really depressing how far the Democrats have fallen (Mike - do I get extra credit for using this post twice?)

Stop to think about it - Andrew Jackson fought many battles for this country, and yet the modern Democrat can't stand up to do the right thing for the right reason unless there is some sort of political advantage. Gone are the Democrat leaders with fire in their belly for the cause of freedom, only to be replaced with cream-puff flip-flops (I voted for the war before I voted against it!) Instead of a General Jackson, we seem to be stuck with the likes of Non-Compoop Kerry who would run & hide instead of finishing the job and draft-dodging chumps who don't even want to protect our liberties (you know who I mean!). Even now, I don't hear anyone making the statement that they thought Al-Gore would be doing a better job than Bush.

The Dems are so far out there, I can't believe it. They criticize almost every program & proposal that the Republicans put out there, but they do not have a counter-proposal. It is almost as if they want to return to the days of when they were in power.

Well, I hate to break it to them, but 30+ years of them running the Congress has almost put this country in bankruptcy, and has left a bloated shambles of the Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. And then they have the nerve to state that they would like to run a National Healthcare program!! Would you, the interested reader of this blog, think that is wise? I don't.

A quote attributed to Albert Einstein states, "There is no surer sign of insanity than trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results." Having the Dems back in charge and expecting them to change things for the better based on their track record is exactly that - insanity.

I've made the statement on a couple of other blogs, and I'll make the statement here: The Democrat Party of today, by and large, resembles the South end of a Northbound jackass, and I can't think of a better mascot for the Democrats. Can you?

OK, rant is over. Flame on!


Nightcrawler said...

20 bonus points for you! Great post, great use of history to point out the bewilderment and lack of direction embodied in today's Democrats. They're embracing their inner jackass to be sure.

Gaius Arbo said...

They are pretty sad these days. I can't wait to see how they do in November.....

Teresa said...

I will never forgive the "asses" for what they did to the military in the 90s and we have never recovered nor will we.

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

Great post, Tom.

I love that Einstein quote, too.
Always been one of my favorites.

Mike's America said...

The Einstein quote is a keeper!

Opinion Journal had the theory that the Democrats unrelenting negativity is an attempt to make the voters so sick and tired of all the bickering that they just vote Democrat to shut them up.

There is always that group of voters who are tired of the current administration and think that change would be a good thing.

But would voters really want to hand government over to political platform founded on negativity, hate and bitterness? What kind of government would you get as a result?

We may lose a few seats in 2006, but I doubt their will be a fundamental change in the political balance between the two parties.

That would be unfortunate. As we must win the political battle and defeat the blame Ameria/surrender crowd before we can hope to have the will to take the more difficult measures necessary to win the war.

It will be up to each of us to do what we can in our own states to make sure our guys win.

Dan Trabue said...

"There is no surer sign of insanity than trying the same thing repeatedly expecting different results." -Einstein

So like, would this apply to those who'd keep trying to bring peace by waging war? And it's 30 years of often lame Democratic leadership that nearly bankrupted the US and not a multi-trillions of dollars arms race?

I'm no defender of the Dems, criticize away. But they hold no lock on lame-ness.

Tom said...

Dan, I agree with you to a point. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives have all had their fair share of what I would delicately call "brain-farts." Just that the Democrats seem to have made themselves the leaders of the pack in recent memory.

Bringing peace by waging war, and an arms race…I suppose it depends on who you believe is the enemy, and what appropriate measures are believed to be necessary to defend yourself or your country. I'm a firm believer in Ronald Reagan's policy of "Peace through Strength." The Israelis definitely believe in it, and no country has attacked them in recent history (except Iraq in the first Gulf War, in which they showed remarkable restraint).

As far as the economic condition of the country goes, there are far greater causes of the problems than the size of the defense budget. Social programs that are inefficient, overlapping, and wasteful far outweigh military spending. It's just that the military budget gets the attention from the media rather than the others.

Dan Trabue said...

It gets more attention because it's so massive. We are currently spending over half a trillion dollars a year on the military. We spend 25 billion on social services.

It's a fairly simple matter to see where more of our money is going and who's doing more spending, if you're talking social programs vs military.

Tom said...

Waste is waste, and it comes out of our tax dollars. Sure the military wastes $$, but so do the social programs. You just don't hear about the waste in the social progams. I wonder why that is the case?

My wife worked for the Federal government as an accountant. The political infighting over all the little social programs and the amount of $$ that are wasted because of such and such Congressperson wants the program for their state/special interest group is mind-boggling.

If you want to target all of the waste in government, then do it without regard to if it is military or social in nature.

Dan Trabue said...

"If you want to target all of the waste in government, then do it without regard to if it is military or social in nature."

A point I can easily agree with.

My original point, though, was more to address the notion that liberals are often tagged as big spenders and conservatives, not. In truth, we all have programs that we think will make for a better society and it's not the liberals/progressives that are doing the bulk of the spending.

Tom said...

Government spending is huge, no matter what party or leanings you may have. In my mind, the biggest problem we have is Congress doing the spending, and we are asking them to be accountable for it. Unfortunately, it's like the fox watching the henhouse.