March 9, 2008
Imagine, if you will, Josef Stalin talking about one of his “elections” in which 95 percent of the adult populace participated. The other 5 percent was either on their deathbeds (and they had better damn well die, or else!) or in the gulag.
If someone were to suggest that the election was fraudulent because only one candidate or slate of candidates was the on the ballot and that the election shouldn’t count Uncle Joe’s talk might go something like this: “I think it would be a grave disservice to the voters of Georgia and the Ukraine to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone.”
He might also say, "They clearly believed that their votes would count, and I think that there has to be a way to make them count.” Or even, “The desires of thirty million people who trudged through the snow to vote should not be ignored.”
Well, you’ve probably guessed by now that when I say Stalin, I really mean Hillary Clinton. Can’t fool you, can I?
Only the Clintons could pull off hypocrisy of this magnitude and not be hounded to the water’s edge by a righteous press. Just think about it for a moment: an election that she agreed not to participate in, and then duplicitously decided to compete in, including one primary election where her name was the ONLY one on the ballot. How about the people who wanted to vote for Obama but weren’t allowed to because his name was not on the ballot? Weren’t they disenfranchised? Guess not.
Hillary has a little more in common with Stalin than just that. Stalin, and other 20th century dictators, was able to demonstrate that the bigger the lie, the more likely you are to get away with it. I’m waiting for Hillary Clinton to murder someone on national television and then, holding the smoking gun, deny that it just happened. Personally, I think she’d be able to get away with it.
One really good thing about this pig’s breakfast of an election season: When it’s done, whether Obama wins or Hillary manages to steal it, I think we’ve buried for good any more Democrat talk about hanky panky elections. These guys shouldn’t be able to raise their heads above the edge of the gutter -- but they will, because Democrats and liberals are without shame. You have to admire them for that.
Which brings up another delicious irony, the way this primary has devolved into which group is the biggest, and therefore the most worthy victim. Maureen Dowd describes the current unpleasantness between Hillary and Obama this way:
With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.
People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?
For those of us who feel no sense of guilt about history and have always been annoyed about the propensity of liberals to label people who stand in their way as racists and misogynists, it is delicious indeed to see the seeds of this sort of gender and race politics grow into a forest of weeds that can’t be cut without making either feminists or race politicians bleed.
Hatched by Dave Ross on this day, March 9, 2008, at the time of 5:21 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2876
The following hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive
Wonderful ironies here, spelling out the twisted Orewellisms of the last 40 politically correct years. Obama should win because his race trumps Hillary's gender, and vice versa.
Yeah, I know that the terminology we see in the PC literature is supported by a whole encyclopedia of backstage corollaries which firmly decree that the activist terminology is to be applied exclusively against The Establishment.
But on common sense principles, what we are witnessing is a particularly vicious battle of the racists against the sexists for the Presidency of the United States. Qualifications and experience for the office are simply twaddle to be spewed, since neither candidate has them. So what better occasion shall we ever have to lay back and simply enjoy the battle?
The following hissed in response by: soccerdad
Ever hear of the Tirana index? I know it's not relevant to the gist of your article. Your beginning just reminded me of it.
The above hissed in response by: soccerdad at March 10, 2008 10:31 AM
The following hissed in response by: Ken Hahn
My only problem with your logic is that I can't think of a time when less than 5% of the Soviet population was out of the Gulag.
The following hissed in response by: boffo
I don't think Hillary actually expects the Florida and Michigan votes to count. Rather, she is advocating this absurd position so that the slightly less absurd proposal of a re-vote will seem reasonable.
If she were to say, "We should add up all the delegates, and once we know the complete count, if I'm behind we should do a few extra votes to help me," people would laugh at how ridiculous that is.
But when she starts off insisting, "I should get a bunch of extra delegates because I was the only one who was lying when I promised not to campaign," then a re-vote sounds like a compromise.
The following hissed in response by: Rovin
Fast Forward eight months.......
It's being reported that the former states of Michigan and Florida may get around to re-voting to re-ratify their inclusion back into the United States after ceeding from the Union last summer. Both former governors implied that they preferred to move the dates of the ratification ahead of the schedule to resume their respective relevance according the the newly formed Election Workers Union.
The above hissed in response by: Rovin at March 10, 2008 6:57 PM
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
I haven't laughed this hard at an election in a long time.
Funny how the supremacy of power in the U.S. is now Federal government> unelected party officials >state>local. I never knew that until now. Perhaps it is unelected party officials. Federal>state>local. Must have missed that part of the constitution.
It is odd that Democrats are consistently undemocratic. Historically elections have and will continue to be stolen by Democrats. It is the same impulse that requires a court order rather than a law to get things done. Always action.
Gore, the self-righteous loser, sued to recount for the third time ballots only in counties that were overwhelmingly Democratic under the motto of "count every vote".
Fight on Hillary! You have nothing left to lose, having jettisoned your dignity long ago. Keep going Obama - it is your destiny to be the apprentice president!
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved