Eliot Spitzer is shows why Democrats will lose in 2008

Oooh, what a delicious moment: a Democrat is doing what Democrats do best: screw up.

The latest case is New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. The supposed reformer, he was adored by my finance professor.

While I respected some of Eliot’s actions, I knew something was up. He didn’t “feel” right.

My suspicion is vindicated: Eliot is John #9 in a major prostitution bust. It’s doubly ironic because, as New York attorney general, he busted prostitution rings.

This is a good example for the record: Democrats are not reformers. Democrats’ fundamental belief in increasing government’s intervention in and control of the economy is an anathema to reform. Economic control is a tool of madmen, tyrants, communists, and socialists, not lovers of freedom, justice, and liberty.

And let’s talk about effectiveness: compare the 1993 Republican Contract with America to the Democrat promises for the current Congress. Many of the Contract With America’s reforms went through, repeatedly forcing Slick Willie’s hand (part of which his wife is disavowing to appease the Democrat radical left wing base). On the other hand, what happened with the latest Democrat salvo? They came in with a whine, they are leaving with a pout. They can’t even hold to promises of no earmarks! (Should the failure by tax and spend Democrats to control spending surprise anyone?)

Speaking of Democrats, look at their presidential choices: a senator with a personal and family legacy of corruption, rotten deals, narcissism, and regal demeanor of entitlement, or a radical leftist senator without substantive national experience, untested by the media.

It’s like having to choose between Satan and the Devil.

Compare to the prohibitive Republican nominee, a war hero who, despite his foibles, represents a mature, experienced alternative.

In one’s final voting booth decision, a mature, experienced alternative might look awfully appealing next to Satan or the Devil.

4 thoughts on “Eliot Spitzer is shows why Democrats will lose in 2008”

  1. Hey, you seem to be holding back a little … how do you really feel? (wink)

    I agree on many counts with your political persuasion, but let’s leave some room for grace and humility. How many bad decisions away are you or I from this guy?

    Obama’s an ex-druggie? Well I’ll tell you I have a real soft spot for ex-druggies, so I say, “You go Obama!” Perhaps God is redeeming that former way of life… (whether I agree with the politics or not)

    BUT thanks for putting yourself out there and saying what you think … I admire and honor that. TKH

  2. TKH: You’re correct. The comment about ex-druggie is not good. I removed it (along with several grammatical fixes).

    Nobody’s perfect. While I strongly believe in intense scrutiny of a presidential candidate, I would also wager that reformed foibles from the past may need to be disclosed but shouldn’t be used against the candidate if he has clearly reformed.

    As for criticisms of Democrats, it’s a criticism of their party’s bankrupt economic philosophy.

    I’m waiting for someone to comment that spending increased under Republicans. Yes, but that’s because Republicans stole a page from FDR, and legions of us are starting to fight back against that corrupt stance.

Leave a Reply to TKH Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.