Who Votes for These People?

When I watch different politicians speak on television, I often wonder how it's possible that some of them manage to get re-elected to office time and again? Some of these people in our national House and Senate are so obviously sleazy and disgusting in first (and ongoing) impressions that I find it extremely puzzling how they keep their seats.

I've tried to step back and analyze whether my distaste comes from my own political perspective, and I suppose that has to be a component. Because I'm hard pressed to identify a prominent Republican that fills me with revulsion when they appear in the media.

The most creepy politicians on my list are these:

Ted Kennedy. I don't wish him harm, and hope he recovers from his brain tumor. But knowing what he did at Chappaquidic and the over-the-top outrageous behavior he has exhibited over the years as a senator makes me cringe. I figure Massachusetts keep him around because they really are pretty far left there and he's JFK and RFK's brother.

Harry Reid. Could his party have appointed a more creepy, weaselly, obviously corrupt Vegas Democrat to be the Senate majority leader? Maybe, but it would be a close call.

Barney Frank. A gay prostitution ring run by his boyfriend, and he continues to hold his seat? He's a disgusting figure, and not just because he's openly gay.

Dick Durbin. This guy strikes me as the schoolyard bully, a natural by-product of the corrupt Chicago machine.

Russ Feingold. A chilling character that seemingly would be comfortable in the Third Reich.

Dennis Kucinich. The insane guy from Ohio who spends all his time trying to impeach Bush and runs for president every cycle with the weird belief he could actually become America's own communist dictator version of Hugo Chavez.

John Murtha. Another schoolyard bully that is transparently focused on his own power and is another Ohio guy who is unquestionably corrupt but still gets returned to congress by his district.

Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. I put them together because they're basically the same. Radical feminist Californians with way too much power given their frightening ignorance and vapidity.

There are several others, but the above list are the all-stars. It's funny how these folks are easily detestable, while the worst I could say about Republicans is that they're out of touch cowards. Because Republicans have an aversion to lowering themselves into the mud with their Democrat counterparts.

It seems to me that if Republicans could somehow find a bit of courage and actually practice the conservatism that the party used to believe in, it would be pretty easy for them to win back control of congress. But they've already capitulated.

Truth Missing from Campaign

The rhetorical pretzel Obama tied himself into over the question of the success of the "Surge" in Iraq was almost comical.

Given the undeniable fact that Iraq has been largely pacified, Al Quaeda defeated, and the government taking over the country's security, Obama found himself in the uncomfortable position of acknowledging the success of the surge without appearing to give any credit to those who implemented it, namely President Bush and General Petraeus.

Because Obama himself was a vocal opponent to the surge strategy, while McCain was an ardent supporter who also claims to have been a key architect.

Thus the pretzel. Violence may be down, but there are still fundamental problems in Iraq. There's no way to know what would have happened had his (Obama's) ideas been implemented. The reduction in violence is due to the Sunni efforts to stop the insurgents in their areas and Al Sadr standing down his Mahdi militias and the leadership of Maliki. Not because of the aggressive strategy change implemented by American troops in cooperation with Iraqi troops under the leadership of General Petraeus, who was given the tools to accomplish the mission by President Bush.

So the whole marketing image of Barack Obama continues to crumble. He is not a new kind of politician. He is not interested in uniting the country. His version of unity says those who support him are united, while those who don't are divisive and maybe a bit racist.

Reminds me of Communist China. The Chinese are taught from birth that the government is their daddy and momma. As long as they follow the rules and are good little socialists, they will enjoy peace and harmony. Those who disobey the government are disrupting that harmony and must be re-educated until they understand.

Obama's rhetoric often sounds disturbingly Chinese.

Counting on Ignorance

The fascinating phenomena that continues in the form of the Obama campaign represents the most striking example of a campaign relying on the ignorance of the population to win the most powerful office in the land.

All that is required is the suspension of preconceptions and biases, simply listening to Obama talk, and reading about his policy positions. It doesn't take long to discover that the Democrat's Messiah is nothing close.

In his own speeches he will tout his commitment to bringing civility and respect back to the political process. Then he trashes President Bush in almost the next sentence, surprisingly even doing so when the Bush bash has nothing to do with the topic of his speech.

On the big issues of the day, he crafts his message based on his audience. Just a few examples I've noticed:

He proposed sweeping new taxes to fund his Univeral Healthcare plan. Then he said that only the rich will pay them.

One of the few issues you can find where he has held a consistent position is on gun control. He has always opposed private ownership of guns, and supports outright bans on handguns and assault rifles. Suddenly after the Supreme Court overturned DC's ban, he seemed to reverse himself.

He gives a speech on patriotism, apparently in an attempt to reassure people he really does like America. He promises never to question his opponent's patriotism, even though a day before his speech, a key member of his campaign did just that. When he was campaigning for the support of the Democrat Left, he announced that he would not wear a flag pin because, well, I still don't really know what he meant - something about it might be viewed as a pander. Then suddenly when he all but sealed his nomination, he began wearing one, which looks pretty much like a pander.

Ultimately, I can't figure out how so many are excited to elect a guy who will make their lives miserable. How does it make sense to elect somebody who has promised to raise taxes, restrict trade, cap energy supplies, pacify our enemies, dismantle the military, let the United Nations levy taxes on us, and give away our national sovereignty?

Yet the lemmings sprint toward the cliff.